I am well aware that this particular point is opinion. I have had
justifications for and arguments in favor of it in the past, but none of
them come readily to mind at the moment, except for the one gone over
briefly below.
Messages sent to my address directly are explicitly not filtered into
the folders I have set up for various mailing lists, so that if someone
does send me a "heads up" reply for a specific topic on a list to which
I am subscribed it does not get caught by the list filter and fail to
come to my attention. If a message fails to be filtered into any
mailing-list folder, then I should be able to conclude that it is
specifically intended for me, and not part of normal mailing-list
traffic. The practice of sending replies to both addresses renders this
an invalid conclusion. I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect
that conclusion to be valid.
It's not that I'm not receiving all of this thread's messages via the
list - it's that I'm not receiving *any* of them via the list, and I
suspect that the reason is that my address is in both the To:/Cc: and
the list itself. Something is filtering it such that I do not receive
"duplicate" replies in this way, but it is doing so by filtering out the
list copy rather than the direct copy. I have seen mailing lists which
do this before, but I see no other indication that the LKML is one of
them, and I would not be in the least surprised if this turned out to be
yet one more problem with gmail.
As far as I am aware, I am seeing all messages posted to the list which
do not have me in To: or Cc:. I suspect that if a reply in this thread
were posted to the list but not sent to me, I would see it on the list.
It might be worth an experiment, but since it would increase traffic for
other list members to no purpose it is probably not worth it overall.
ehci-hcd is not modular in my current kernel, and if there is a way to
turn it off without its being modular I am not aware of it. I will have
to jump through a few hoops to be able to obtain a copy of the boot CD
with an updated kernel while not at work, but I will try to do so
sometime tomorrow.
In practical terms, I am frankly not especially bothered by the lack of
support for high-speed USB in Linux on this machine; the primary reason
I am interested in USB there at the moment, aside from a general
philosophy of "unsupported devices are bad and anything I can do to help
them become supported is good", is because getting it working would
allow me to easily get the necessary information out to be able to
properly report the other problems, with AHCI and networking.
Until this thread, I was not even aware that ACPI was related to USB; I
had largely conflated it with a similar acronym which I think is related
to power management and which I can suddenly not even find in my kernel
config. I will, however, look into linux-acpi.
I have found at least a place to start, and am reading up on the
subject. I will most likely not be able to make a practical start on
this until at least Tuesday, as not having direct access to the machine
I will in the long term be building on makes some things impractical,
but if no solution is forthcoming in the meantime I will expect to do this.
That will not be helpful for the other two problems, however, since
neither of them was ever working as far as I am aware. That also leaves
me hesitant to conclude that they are rooted in the same IRQ issue as
the USB problem appears to be.
Which lists or other addresses would be appropriate for reporting
problems with AHCI/libata and with networking, specifically with the
e1000/e1000e drivers? I see a mailing list for e1000 in MAINTAINERS, but
only the maintainer's address for SATA/libata/whatever else may be
involved there, and I am reflexively reluctant to bother a maintainer
directly with as little information as I presently have.
--
Andrew Buehler
--
