Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Matthew Wilcox
Date: Friday, April 11, 2008 - 12:01 pm

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:51:07AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

We only support people keeping their old configs after they run 'make
oldconfig', right?  At which point they'd be prompted for E1000_SUPPORT.
Presumably they'd think "That's odd.  I'm sure I had that selected
before", then select it.  Then oldconfig skips over CONFIG_E1000 because
it already knows the answer to that one and they're prompted with a
question about PCIe support.  Now something is clearly strange.  Perhaps
they look at the help text at this point and it says to go with 'Y' or
'M' if they're not sure.

That's the most important bit of help texts for me.  Do I want Control
Groups?  Will my machine break if I don't select them?  I have no idea
what a 'process cgroup subsystem' is, and I don't care.  But the help
text tells me I can say "n" and nothing will break.


I quite agree.  I have no idea either.  All I know is that my ICH9 box
didn't work until e1000e was released ;-)

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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, 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 && 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 && e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Apr 10, 12:27 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Chris Friesen, (Thu Apr 10, 2:20 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Randy Dunlap, (Thu Apr 10, 2:44 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Philip Craig, (Thu Apr 10, 5:46 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && 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 && 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 && e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Apr 11, 4:36 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && 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 && e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Apr 11, 9:45 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Martin Mares, (Fri Apr 11, 10:10 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 10:34 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 10:53 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 11:51 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 12:01 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && 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 && e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 12:38 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 1:21 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Krzysztof Halasa, (Fri Apr 11, 1:22 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 1:29 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 3:06 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Jeff Garzik, (Fri Apr 11, 3:21 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 4:00 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 4:05 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 4:15 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Jeff Garzik, (Fri Apr 11, 4:43 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Sat Apr 12, 6:07 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Sun Apr 13, 2:13 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ondrej Zary, (Sun Apr 13, 2:34 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Jun 9, 12:24 pm)