[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Add eeprom_bad_csum_allow module option to e1000.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:03:38 -0700
"Kok, Auke" <> wrote:

> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:40:01PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > > > In any case, this patch should not be merged. We often send it around to users to
> > > > debug their issue in case it involves eeproms, but merging it will just conceal
> > > > the real issue and all of a sudden a flood of people stop reporting *real* issues
> > > > to us.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I disagree. Just as with e100, if there is a clear way the user
> > > can recover their setup -- and Adam says his was effective -- I don't
> > > see why we should be denying users the ability to use their own hardware.
> >
> > Indeed. This is a common enough problem that not including it causes more pain
> > than its worth. I have two affected boxes myself that I actually thought
> > the hardware was dead before I tried ajax's patch.
> look: You should have reported this to us and you didn't. Now you are using the
> fact that you did not report it as an argument which is out of place.
> why do you say it is common? how often have you seen this and not reported it back
> to our support? are you willingly trying to frustrate this issue?
> Auke

What about a compromise like "ignore_checksum" module option?
That way users with bad checksums wouldn't just ignore the problem (no one reads console logs),
but would have a way to correct the checksum.

There are many reasons would want the ability to fix the problem themselves without
asking Intel.

Stephen Hemminger <>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-24 01:57    [W:0.103 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site