Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21:24:57 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix |
| |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > .. but that said, I think your patch is certainly better than what we have > > > now (or what Ingo was complaining about for the next merge window). I > > > certainly could live with it. I would just suggest against ever then > > > removing that "generic E1000" choice. > > > > You mean never ever remove PCI-E support from e1000? > > No. I mean never ever remove the *configure* level thinking that > "e1000 is e1000". > > There is no sense in *ever* showing it as two drivers to users, > because users do not see them as separate chipsets. They look > identical, down to the part names. > > If it's a single family, and users can't even easily tell whether they > have version 1 or version 2 (PCI vs PCI-E), you shouldn't even ask > them. You should literally ask them: "do you want e1000 support". > > That's it. > > Once you have asked them that, you can then decide "ok, if you > *really* know what version of the chip you have, you can decide to > only get limited driver support". > > But that's a secondary thing from a user perspective. > > See the patch I already sent out.
btw., in the last 2-3 months i've hit this bug about a dozen times, on various test-systems i have. And i just hit it a minute ago again, reminding me of this open issue, with such a config:
CONFIG_E1000=y # CONFIG_E1000_NAPI is not set CONFIG_E1000_DISABLE_PACKET_SPLIT=y CONFIG_E1000E=y CONFIG_E1000E_ENABLED=y
Every time this bug hits i lose about 30 minutes of testing (sometimes hours of it, because my testing stalls) and once it took half an hour of head-scratching to notice that the bl**dy CONFIG_E1000E_ENABLED=y again was killing the e1000 driver i rely on having.
With up to 10 test-systems and a healthy mix of old and new distros it's just not realistic to reconfigure all those distros to use e1000e. (Also, i frequently have to bisect back into older kernels and have scripting to make this work most of the time - if i standardized on e1000e i'd lose the ability to do automated bisection.)
i have a patch that undoes this e1000 damage but sometimes i forget to apply it and then the bug can hit me. Whoever thinks that this isnt a problem in practice hasnt been doing a lot of systematic testing. It's quite a PITA and it's still not fixed upstream. (and it's not eligible for the v2.6.26 regression list anymore as it got introduced in v2.6.25)
Ingo
| |