From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760231AbYDKLbM (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:31:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759490AbYDKLa4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:30:56 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:33104 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759099AbYDKLaz (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:30:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:30:18 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeff Garzik Cc: "Kok, Auke" , Matthew Wilcox , Linux Kernel Mailing List , NetDev , e1000-list , linux-pci maillist , Andrew Morton , "David S. Miller" , Linus Torvalds , Jesse Brandeburg , "Ronciak, John" , "Allan, Bruce W" , Greg KH , Arjan van de Ven , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000 Message-ID: <20080411113018.GD9205@elte.hu> References: <20080408083606.GA20863@elte.hu> <47FB9ABB.9080403@intel.com> <20080408183921.GA20803@elte.hu> <20080408193245.GG11962@parisc-linux.org> <20080408195123.GA28148@elte.hu> <47FBCE00.2020309@garzik.org> <20080408200652.GC28148@elte.hu> <47FBD620.1080508@intel.com> <20080409191256.GB9276@elte.hu> <47FD19F5.9020509@garzik.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47FD19F5.9020509@garzik.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jeff Garzik wrote: >> So i'm not sure why you are arguing about all this. Please just fix >> this bug, simple as that. > > 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 well, your 2.6.26 plans, if i understand them correctly, is to move currently working PCI IDs from e1000 to e1000e, like you attempted to d it in v2.6.24, which Linus reverted - correct? I.e. e1000 simply wont support eth0 on my T60 from 2.6.26 on? That is still an incredibly stupid plan, and no amount of announcement on lkml will make it any less stupid. ... which pretty much pulls the rug from under your argument, no? Ingo