lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix
    Randy Dunlap wrote:
    > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:23:50 -0700 Kok, Auke wrote:
    >
    >> Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >>> * Kok, Auke <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>> config E1000E_ENABLED
    >>>>>> - def_bool E1000E != n
    >>>>>> + def_bool E1000E = y || ((E1000E != n) && (E1000 = E1000E))
    >>>>> Uh, that's /not/ what Ingo's patch does. His patch makes e1000
    >>>>> claim the e1000e IDs if e1000 is built-in and e1000e is a module.
    >>>> so that's definately _not_ what I would like to see at all. Matthew
    >>>> points out that this will just prolong users to use e1000 instead of
    >>>> e1000e (which is what they should be encouraged to switch to in those
    >>>> cases).
    >>>>
    >>>> so I'm dropping my ACK
    >>> why you want to cripple an existing, rather well working and popular
    >>> Linux driver is beyond me.
    >> Because we decided a long time ago to do this driver split. And everyone at that
    >> time agreed with that, and we set out to do this. And part of that plan was to
    >> move (not copy) the device IDs over.
    >>
    >> We accepted that that might break some kernel developers' systems in the process
    >> and consulted several vendors and distros if they were OK with the change and they
    >> all agreed with the plan.
    >>
    >> I do not want people with PCI Express e1000 cards to use e1000 for any day longer
    >> than is strictly needed, and I certainly do not want to prolong the period where
    >> both drivers could work on their adapters. That will be a far bigger nightmare for
    >> me than just a few kernel developers having a bad day.
    >>
    >> I guarantee, I will get e-mails about 2.6.25+e1000(e) issues for far longer then
    >> you guys :)
    >>
    >> Users will outnumber us kernel developers in complaints if we keep the situation
    >> unclear to them, and we already told them that they need to switch to e1000e for
    >> their PCI Express devices. If we now do stuff like what you proposed in that
    >> patch, we just prolong this confusion. That cannot be good for anyone. Imagine if
    >> distro's start picking random device IDs or worse. Stuff like that is already
    >> happening, and discussions like these just add to the confusion.
    >>
    >> Again - If there is a way to auto-enable e1000e in the right way so that more
    >> systems migrate better then I'm all for it (even if forcing E1000E=y). But it
    >> seems that the various patches proposed don't cut it and frankly Kconfig is
    >> completely inadequate as a hardware enabling script since it knows absolutely
    >> nothing about the hardware in the first place. And it wasn't meant for that
    >> either. `make oldconfig` is not the answer ;).
    >
    > It would make much more sense IMO to add
    > CONFIG_E1000E=y
    > to defconfig ... and also to change
    > CONFIG_FUSION=y
    > to
    > CONFIG_FUSION=n
    > while there :)

    that first part (for x86 at least) I already sent (straight to linus even) after
    same comment from Andy.

    Auke



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-11 00:09    [W:0.063 / U:29.344 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site