Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000

view
thread

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...>

Cc: Kok, Auke <auke-jan.h.kok@...>, 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@...>

Subject: Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000

Date: Friday, April 11, 2008 - 7:30 am

* Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:

quoted text>> So i'm not sure why you are arguing about all this. Please just fix 
>> this bug, simple as that.
>
> I haven't said NAK, but I think the suggested fix is a waste of time 
> because
>
> 1) it breaks (by disallowing) a valid setup based on one report
>
> 2) it only happens to experienced kernel hackers with weird configs
>
> 3) the suggested fix binds together more tightly two drivers we are 
> trying to keep separate
>
> 4) it is a temporary situation that will go away in 2.6.26 anyway

well, your 2.6.26 plans, if i understand them correctly, is to move 
currently working PCI IDs from e1000 to e1000e, like you attempted to d 
it in v2.6.24, which Linus reverted - correct? I.e. e1000 simply wont 
support eth0 on my T60 from 2.6.26 on? That is still an incredibly 
stupid plan, and no amount of announcement on lkml will make it any less 
stupid.

... which pretty much pulls the rug from under your argument, no?

	Ingo
--
unsubscribe noticeTo unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:

[regression] e1000e broke e1000 (was: Re: [ANNOUNCE] e1000 t..., Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 2:39 pm)

RE: [regression] e1000e broke e1000 (was: Re: [ANNOUNCE] e10..., Brandeburg, Jesse, (Tue Apr 8, 3:43 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000 (was: Re: [ANNOUNCE] e10..., Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 3:59 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000 (was: Re: [ANNOUNCE] e10..., Matthew Wilcox, (Tue Apr 8, 4:04 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000 (was: Re: [ANNOUNCE] e10..., Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 4:17 pm)

showing which hardware is unclaimed, Rick Jones, (Tue Apr 8, 4:13 pm)

Re: showing which hardware is unclaimed, Martin Mares, (Tue Apr 8, 4:35 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Dan Noe, (Tue Apr 8, 4:12 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Matthew Wilcox, (Tue Apr 8, 4:20 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Dan Noe, (Tue Apr 8, 4:39 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 4:35 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Martin Mares, (Tue Apr 8, 4:36 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000 (was: Re: [ANNOUNCE] e10..., Matthew Wilcox, (Tue Apr 8, 3:32 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000 (was: Re: [ANNOUNCE] e10..., Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 3:51 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Bill Davidsen, (Wed Apr 9, 8:52 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 4:59 am)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Jeff Garzik, (Tue Apr 8, 3:56 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 4:06 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Kok, Auke, (Tue Apr 8, 4:31 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Wed Apr 9, 3:12 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Jeff Garzik, (Wed Apr 9, 3:33 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 7:30 am)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Chris Friesen, (Fri Apr 11, 11:40 am)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Willy Tarreau, (Fri Apr 11, 3:29 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Jeff Garzik, (Tue Apr 8, 4:19 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 4:33 pm)

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Jeff Garzik, (Tue Apr 8, 4:56 pm)

[patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was: Re:..., Ingo Molnar, (Wed Apr 9, 3:38 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was:..., Frans Pop, (Wed Apr 9, 4:49 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was:..., Krzysztof Halasa, (Wed Apr 9, 7:59 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was:..., Linus Torvalds, (Wed Apr 9, 9:40 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was:..., Krzysztof Halasa, (Thu Apr 10, 5:57 am)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was:..., Linus Torvalds, (Thu Apr 10, 10:30 am)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was:..., Krzysztof Halasa, (Thu Apr 10, 5:35 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was:..., Grant Grundler, (Thu Apr 10, 1:55 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was:..., Linus Torvalds, (Thu Apr 10, 3:27 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was:..., Matthew Wilcox, (Thu Apr 10, 2:04 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Kok, Auke, (Thu Apr 10, 2:26 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Chris Friesen, (Thu Apr 10, 5:20 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Kok, Auke, (Wed Apr 9, 4:12 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Kok, Auke, (Thu Apr 10, 2:29 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Apr 10, 3:27 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Kok, Auke, (Thu Apr 10, 5:23 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 7:26 am)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Apr 11, 7:36 am)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 8:16 am)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Kok, Auke, (Fri Apr 11, 12:22 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Martin Mares, (Fri Apr 11, 1:10 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Apr 11, 12:45 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 1:34 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 6:06 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 7:00 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Jeff Garzik, (Fri Apr 11, 7:43 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Sun Apr 13, 5:13 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Jun 9, 3:24 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ondrej Zary, (Sun Apr 13, 5:34 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Sat Apr 12, 9:07 am)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, , (Fri Apr 11, 7:58 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 7:15 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Jeff Garzik, (Fri Apr 11, 6:21 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 7:05 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 1:53 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 2:51 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Dan Noe, (Fri Apr 11, 5:01 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Krzysztof Halasa, (Fri Apr 11, 4:22 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 4:29 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 3:01 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 4:21 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Willy Tarreau, (Fri Apr 11, 3:25 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 3:38 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Kok, Auke, (Fri Apr 11, 1:26 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Philip Craig, (Thu Apr 10, 8:46 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Randy Dunlap, (Thu Apr 10, 5:44 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Andi Kleen, (Fri Apr 11, 3:54 am)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Kok, Auke, (Thu Apr 10, 5:52 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Wed Apr 9, 4:53 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Jeff Garzik, (Wed Apr 9, 3:50 pm)

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Wed Apr 9, 4:04 pm)

Re: [E1000-devel] [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Kok, Auke, (Tue Apr 8, 4:47 pm)

Navigation

Popular discussions


linux-kernel:
debian developer	Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Greg Kroah-Hartman	[PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO
Linus Torvalds	Re: Long delay in resume from RAM (Was Re: [patch 00/69] -stablereview)
Parag Warudkar	BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 15s! [swapper:0]
git:

linux-netdev:
Andi Kleen	[PATCH RFC] [4/9] modpost: Fix format string warnings
Rick Jones	Re: Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29
Antonio Almeida	HTB accuracy for high speed
Gerrit Renker	[PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side)
openbsd-misc:

Colocation donated by:

Online users

Syndicate