Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000 (was: Re: [ANNOUNCE] e1000 toe1000e migration of PCI Express devices)

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

* Brandeburg, Jesse <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com> wrote:


correct.


there should be no need for me to set something that the kernel can do 
itself as well ...


i think the solution is obvious and simple: if e1000 is built-in then 
e1000e should not be allowed to be a module. (i.e. it should either be 
built-in in which case it will handle the PCI IDs, or it should be 
disabled - in which case e1000 will handle them.)

that way e1000e can take over the PCI IDs but we'll never get a 
non-working system, which takes an hour for a kernel hacker to figure 
out. The failure was totally silent. eth0 didnt show up at all.

Btw., a sidenote: this is another generally annoying property of Linux: 
there's no easy and user-visible enumeration of PCI IDs (devices) that 
we _could_ support but dont enable for some reason. It is a royal PITA 
to track down when some driver decides to (silently) ignore a piece of 
hardware.

Having a seemingly dead piece of hardware component is one of the most 
frustrating user experiences possible - the first instinctive reaction 
is "did my hw break???". The kernel should proactively know about all 
inactive pieces of hardware and should have a one-stop-shop for users 
where they can reassure themselves which devices are not active and why.

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

Messages in current thread:
RE: [regression] e1000e broke e1000 (was: Re: [ANNOUNCE] e ..., Brandeburg, Jesse, (Tue Apr 8, 12:43 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Jeff Garzik, (Tue Apr 8, 12:56 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000 (was: Re: [ANNOUNCE] e ..., Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 12:59 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 1:06 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Dan Noe, (Tue Apr 8, 1:12 pm)
showing which hardware is unclaimed, Rick Jones, (Tue Apr 8, 1:13 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Jeff Garzik, (Tue Apr 8, 1:19 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Matthew Wilcox, (Tue Apr 8, 1:20 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Kok, Auke, (Tue Apr 8, 1:31 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 1:33 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 1:35 pm)
Re: showing which hardware is unclaimed, Martin Mares, (Tue Apr 8, 1:35 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Martin Mares, (Tue Apr 8, 1:36 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Dan Noe, (Tue Apr 8, 1:39 pm)
Re: [E1000-devel] [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Kok, Auke, (Tue Apr 8, 1:47 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Jeff Garzik, (Tue Apr 8, 1:56 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Wed Apr 9, 12:12 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Jeff Garzik, (Wed Apr 9, 12:33 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Jeff Garzik, (Wed Apr 9, 12:50 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Bill Davidsen, (Wed Apr 9, 5:52 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Apr 10, 12:27 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Chris Friesen, (Thu Apr 10, 2:20 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Randy Dunlap, (Thu Apr 10, 2:44 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Philip Craig, (Thu Apr 10, 5:46 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Andi Kleen, (Fri Apr 11, 12:54 am)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 1:59 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 4:26 am)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 4:30 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Apr 11, 4:36 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 5:16 am)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Chris Friesen, (Fri Apr 11, 8:40 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Apr 11, 9:45 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Martin Mares, (Fri Apr 11, 10:10 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 10:34 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 10:53 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 11:51 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 12:01 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Willy Tarreau, (Fri Apr 11, 12:25 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Willy Tarreau, (Fri Apr 11, 12:29 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 12:38 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 1:21 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Krzysztof Halasa, (Fri Apr 11, 1:22 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 1:29 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 3:06 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Jeff Garzik, (Fri Apr 11, 3:21 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 4:00 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 4:05 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 4:15 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Jeff Garzik, (Fri Apr 11, 4:43 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Sat Apr 12, 6:07 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Sun Apr 13, 2:13 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Ondrej Zary, (Sun Apr 13, 2:34 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Jun 9, 12:24 pm)