login
Header Space

 
 

Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was: Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000)

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>
Cc: <jeff@...>, <matthew@...>, <auke-jan.h.kok@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <netdev@...>, <e1000-devel@...>, <linux-pci@...>, <akpm@...>, <davem@...>, <torvalds@...>, <jesse.brandeburg@...>, <john.ronciak@...>, <bruce.w.allan@...>, <greg@...>, <arjan@...>, <rjw@...>
Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 4:49 pm

Ingo Molnar wrote:

Speaking as someone who's mostly (guestimated at 97% ;-) a user, I'd be in 
favor of a patch like this.

The scenario I have in mind that would lead to exactly the situation Ingo is 
trying to solve is this:
Fairly experienced user wants a kernel which supports his hardware without 
having to load modules, but wants other modules available "just in case".
So he takes his distro kernel and selectively changes some modules to 
built-ins, including e1000.
Next he upgrades to 2.6.25 and finds his NIC no longer works. Files bug 
reports all over the place and loads of people waste valuable time trying 
to help him. I doubt any of the people trying to help (who are trying to do 
so without access to the hardware) will soon think of this scenario. It's 
much more likely they'll get stuck on "but e1000e is available as a module, 
so it should get loaded, right".
Maybe, just very maybe, someone, in an act of desperation will say "ok, try 
compiling in the module, see if that works".

Or maybe they will stumble on this thread at some point. Anyway, I 
completely agree with Ingo that it would be really nice if all the wasted 
time and frustration could just be avoided.

Cheers,
FJP
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
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, 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)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was:..., Frans Pop, (Wed Apr 9, 4:49 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Chris Friesen, (Thu Apr 10, 5:20 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Apr 10, 3:27 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 7:26 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Apr 11, 7:36 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 8:16 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Martin Mares, (Fri Apr 11, 1:10 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Apr 11, 12:45 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 1:34 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 6:06 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 7:00 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Jeff Garzik, (Fri Apr 11, 7:43 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Sun Apr 13, 5:13 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Ondrej Zary, (Sun Apr 13, 5:34 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Sat Apr 12, 9:07 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 7:15 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Jeff Garzik, (Fri Apr 11, 6:21 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 7:05 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 1:53 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 2:51 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Krzysztof Halasa, (Fri Apr 11, 4:22 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 4:29 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 3:01 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 4:21 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Willy Tarreau, (Fri Apr 11, 3:25 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 3:38 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Philip Craig, (Thu Apr 10, 8:46 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y &amp;&amp; e1000e=m regression fix, Randy Dunlap, (Thu Apr 10, 5:44 pm)
Re: [E1000-devel] [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Kok, Auke, (Tue Apr 8, 4:47 pm)
speck-geostationary