Re: [PATCH] Add eeprom_bad_csum_allow module option to e1000.

Stephen Hemminger
2007-10-23T23:54:32Z

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:03:38 -0700
"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com> 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 <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>