login
Header Space

 
 

Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>
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@...>
Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 3:33 pm

Ingo Molnar wrote:

Agreed, and agreed.



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

So from my point of view, your request is to pick the breakage you don't 
care about (#1, above) to fix the breakage you do care about.

It's a "pick your poison" choice, from my POV.

Given that POV, that's why I lean towards avoiding your Kconfig fix -- 
viewing this as a transition issue, and not something to be fixed by 
limiting the choices of others.

But if everyone strongly agrees with you... go ahead and patch, I won't 
NAK it.

I dislike the Kconfig system growing "temporary" hacks, which tend to 
accumulate false dependencies over time.  But I readily admit that's a 
general principle and not a hard rule...

	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:
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 &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