On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 01:09:23PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> writes: > > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:04:19PM +0530, Devendra Naga wrote: > >> at probe we enabled the device, and we should disable it at remove. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Devendra Naga <devendra.a...@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/staging/slicoss/slicoss.c | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/slicoss/slicoss.c > >> b/drivers/staging/slicoss/slicoss.c > >> index a511a2b..5bd3825 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/staging/slicoss/slicoss.c > >> +++ b/drivers/staging/slicoss/slicoss.c > >> @@ -3234,6 +3234,7 @@ static void __devexit slic_entry_remove(struct > >> pci_dev *pcidev) > >> } > >> free_netdev(dev); > >> pci_release_regions(pcidev); > >> + pci_disable_device(pcidev); > > > > No, you really shouldn't do this, see the many times this has come up on > > the linux-kernel mailing list for why. > > I haven't see this? Why don't you want to disable a device at remove > time? Because we put the disable in the generic pci layer?
For some reason, I thought we didn't do this because of other "interfaces" on the same card might then be shut down. But I must have been thinking of something else, as lots of drivers do this, so adding it here looks to be correct. So, sorry Devendra, you were right, care to resend this so I can apply it? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
