Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>, NetDev <netdev@...>, e1000-list <e1000-devel@...>, linux-pci maillist <linux-pci@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, David S. Miller <davem@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...>, Ronciak, John <john.ronciak@...>, Allan, Bruce W <bruce.w.allan@...>, Greg KH <greg@...>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...>, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...>
that's an insane argument ... because we messed up in the past and have
hurt users (and probably lost users) you feel like it gives you a free
card to mess up again???
The IDE -> SATA migration, while i like the new SATA code and find it
excellent and well-maintained (many kudos for that to Tejun, Jeff, Alan
& co), caused a lot of trouble for users in one specific area, for no
good reasons other than stupid personality conflicts: /dev/hda worked
just as well as /dev/sda, the _name_ of the device should never have
been changed.
So if you use _that_ aspect of the (otherwise cool) SATA/PATA code as a
blueprint for the e1000 -> e1000e migration then you are on the worst
possible track in terms of picking a role model ;-) It's as if you
adored Sylvester Stallone for his vivid mimics, Jean-Claude Van Damne
for his excellent acting skills and Paris Hilton for her brillant brain.
really, just because you do exceedingly good things to Linux does not
give you a free card to do something bad to Linux in exchange. The two
do not cancel out each other - because the bad things _add up_ and drive
away users, irreversibly. To you e1000 is the center of the universe so
you feel the price is worth paying. For others it is not. We want the
good things from you and we'll say no thanks to the bad ideas. Kernel
developers, especially old-timers, regularly forget about that.
Ingo
--
