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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Jeff Garzik
Date: Friday, April 11, 2008 - 4:43 pm

Linus Torvalds wrote:


You mean never ever remove PCI-E support from e1000?

Won't that will inflict long term headaches on the people that matter 
most -- users and maintainers -- to avoid short term headaches for 
kernel power users?

To review the overall situation,

* e1000 supports so many chips, that making a change for new hardware in 
e1000 involves breaking stability of older chips

* //You know this// from past kernel history, when late-breaking e1000 
changes for new hardware wound up breaking working setups on multiple 
occasions

* There is 100% agreement that e1000 is a maintenance nightmare, from 
the people who actually touch the code (or even read it).

* Therefore, e1000e receives new h/w support and new devel, leaving 
e1000 to sit and be stable


However, due to a mistake now released to the public -- a tiny few PCI-E 
chips are supported by e1000 -- you have a widely disparate feature set:

	e1000, old chips:		full support

	e1000, a few PCI-E chips:	basic support

	e1000e, all PCI-E chips:	full support

Since e1000e is all new and fancy AND CLEAN, the code for the same chips 
is different -- thus Intel must make every PCI-E fix _twice_.

It also means WE HAVE TO KEEP TOUCHING E1000, while supporting PCI-E 
chips.  After this PCI-E issue is resolved, I want to let e1000 sit and 
be stable and not be touched.

For a temporary situation, this is fine.  Give me transition 
suggestions, please!

For a permanent situation, that sucks.

Distros will ship e1000 sans PCI-E support, which means you are asking 
that PCI-E support be maintained indefinitely, purely for the few kernel 
hackers that still use it?

I __don't care__ how we get there, but a permanent situation where e1000 
continues to support a few PCI-E chips in basic mode seems the least 
desireable of all available options.

Wait six months?  Sure.  Whatever.  As long as we get to where we can 
disable PCI-E support in e1000.

	Jeff




--
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)