* Re: [patch 01/10] e1000e: make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000 [not found] <200712140002.lBE02pUb025505@imap1.linux-foundation.org> @ 2007-12-14 20:39 ` Jeff Garzik 2007-12-14 22:39 ` Adrian Bunk 2007-12-14 23:22 ` Andrew Morton 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Jeff Garzik @ 2007-12-14 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: akpm; +Cc: netdev, randy.dunlap, auke-jan.h.kok, Linux Kernel Mailing List akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote: > From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> > > Make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000. So people's > machiens don't stop working when they use oldconfig. > > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> > Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> > Cc: Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > --- > > drivers/net/Kconfig | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff -puN drivers/net/Kconfig~e1000e-make-e1000e-default-to-the-same-kconfig-setting-as-e1000 drivers/net/Kconfig > --- a/drivers/net/Kconfig~e1000e-make-e1000e-default-to-the-same-kconfig-setting-as-e1000 > +++ a/drivers/net/Kconfig > @@ -1986,6 +1986,7 @@ config E1000_DISABLE_PACKET_SPLIT > config E1000E > tristate "Intel(R) PRO/1000 PCI-Express Gigabit Ethernet support" > depends on PCI > + default E1000 I am not inclined to apply this one. This practice, applied over time, will tend to accumulate weird 'default' and 'select' statements. So I think the breakage that occurs is mitigated by two factors: 1) kernel hackers that do their own configs are expected to be able to figure this stuff. 2) kernel builders (read: distros, mainly) are expected to have put thought into the Kconfig selection and driver migration strategies. PCI IDs move across drivers from time, and we don't want to apply these sorts changes: Viewed in the long term, the suggested patch is merely a temporary change to allow kernel experts to more easily deal with the PCI ID migration across drivers. I would prefer simply to communicate to kernel experts and builders about a Kconfig issue that could potentially their booting/networking... because this patch is only needed if the kernel experts do not already know about a necessary config update. Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 01/10] e1000e: make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000 2007-12-14 20:39 ` [patch 01/10] e1000e: make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000 Jeff Garzik @ 2007-12-14 22:39 ` Adrian Bunk 2007-12-14 23:17 ` Jeff Garzik 2007-12-14 23:22 ` Andrew Morton 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Adrian Bunk @ 2007-12-14 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Garzik Cc: akpm, netdev, randy.dunlap, auke-jan.h.kok, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:39:26PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote: >> From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> >... > So I think the breakage that occurs is mitigated by two factors: > 1) kernel hackers that do their own configs are expected to be able to > figure this stuff. > 2) kernel builders (read: distros, mainly) are expected to have put thought > into the Kconfig selection and driver migration strategies. >... > I would prefer simply to communicate to kernel experts and builders about a > Kconfig issue that could potentially their booting/networking... because > this patch is only needed if the kernel experts do not already know about a > necessary config update. You miss the vast majority of kconfig users: 3) system administrators etc. who for different reasons compile their own kernels but neither are nor want to be kernel developers There's a reason why e.g. LPI requires you to be able to compile your own kernel even for getting a "Junior Level Linux Professional" certificate. Or that one of the authors of "Linux Device drivers" has written a book covering only how to build and run your own kernel. > Jeff cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 01/10] e1000e: make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000 2007-12-14 22:39 ` Adrian Bunk @ 2007-12-14 23:17 ` Jeff Garzik 2007-12-15 0:02 ` Adrian Bunk 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Jeff Garzik @ 2007-12-14 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Adrian Bunk Cc: akpm, netdev, randy.dunlap, auke-jan.h.kok, Linux Kernel Mailing List Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:39:26PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote: >>> From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> >> ... >> So I think the breakage that occurs is mitigated by two factors: >> 1) kernel hackers that do their own configs are expected to be able to >> figure this stuff. >> 2) kernel builders (read: distros, mainly) are expected to have put thought >> into the Kconfig selection and driver migration strategies. >> ... >> I would prefer simply to communicate to kernel experts and builders about a >> Kconfig issue that could potentially their booting/networking... because >> this patch is only needed if the kernel experts do not already know about a >> necessary config update. > > You miss the vast majority of kconfig users: > > 3) system administrators etc. who for different reasons compile their > own kernels but neither are nor want to be kernel developers > > There's a reason why e.g. LPI requires you to be able to compile your > own kernel even for getting a "Junior Level Linux Professional" > certificate. Great! > Or that one of the authors of "Linux Device drivers" has written a book > covering only how to build and run your own kernel. Nonetheless, it will always be true that configuring your own kernel requires knowledge of the options you are setting. Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 01/10] e1000e: make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000 2007-12-14 23:17 ` Jeff Garzik @ 2007-12-15 0:02 ` Adrian Bunk 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Adrian Bunk @ 2007-12-15 0:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Garzik Cc: akpm, netdev, randy.dunlap, auke-jan.h.kok, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:17:55PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:39:26PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>> akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote: >>>> From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> >>> ... >>> So I think the breakage that occurs is mitigated by two factors: >>> 1) kernel hackers that do their own configs are expected to be able to >>> figure this stuff. >>> 2) kernel builders (read: distros, mainly) are expected to have put >>> thought into the Kconfig selection and driver migration strategies. >>> ... >>> I would prefer simply to communicate to kernel experts and builders about >>> a Kconfig issue that could potentially their booting/networking... >>> because this patch is only needed if the kernel experts do not already >>> know about a necessary config update. >> >> You miss the vast majority of kconfig users: >> >> 3) system administrators etc. who for different reasons compile their own >> kernels but neither are nor want to be kernel developers >> >> There's a reason why e.g. LPI requires you to be able to compile your own >> kernel even for getting a "Junior Level Linux Professional" certificate. > > Great! > > >> Or that one of the authors of "Linux Device drivers" has written a book >> covering only how to build and run your own kernel. > > Nonetheless, it will always be true that configuring your own kernel > requires knowledge of the options you are setting. We are not talking about Aunt Tillie, "system administrator" is the use case that might cover this (quite diverse) group of users best. We can expect kconfig users to know what filesystems their data is on and to have some knowledge of their hardware, but every other knowledge we must give through kconfig. > Jeff cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 01/10] e1000e: make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000 2007-12-14 20:39 ` [patch 01/10] e1000e: make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000 Jeff Garzik 2007-12-14 22:39 ` Adrian Bunk @ 2007-12-14 23:22 ` Andrew Morton 2007-12-14 23:54 ` Stephen Hemminger 2007-12-15 4:57 ` Bill Fink 1 sibling, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Andrew Morton @ 2007-12-14 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: netdev, randy.dunlap, auke-jan.h.kok, linux-kernel On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:39:26 -0500 Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote: > akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote: > > From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> > > > > Make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000. So people's > > machiens don't stop working when they use oldconfig. > > > > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> > > Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> > > Cc: Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > > --- > > > > drivers/net/Kconfig | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff -puN drivers/net/Kconfig~e1000e-make-e1000e-default-to-the-same-kconfig-setting-as-e1000 drivers/net/Kconfig > > --- a/drivers/net/Kconfig~e1000e-make-e1000e-default-to-the-same-kconfig-setting-as-e1000 > > +++ a/drivers/net/Kconfig > > @@ -1986,6 +1986,7 @@ config E1000_DISABLE_PACKET_SPLIT > > config E1000E > > tristate "Intel(R) PRO/1000 PCI-Express Gigabit Ethernet support" > > depends on PCI > > + default E1000 > > I am not inclined to apply this one. This practice, applied over time, > will tend to accumulate weird 'default' and 'select' statements. > > So I think the breakage that occurs is mitigated by two factors: > 1) kernel hackers that do their own configs are expected to be able to > figure this stuff. > 2) kernel builders (read: distros, mainly) are expected to have put > thought into the Kconfig selection and driver migration strategies. > > PCI IDs move across drivers from time, and we don't want to apply these > sorts changes: Viewed in the long term, the suggested patch is merely a > temporary change to allow kernel experts to more easily deal with the > PCI ID migration across drivers. > > I would prefer simply to communicate to kernel experts and builders > about a Kconfig issue that could potentially their booting/networking... > because this patch is only needed if the kernel experts do not already > know about a necessary config update. You can take it out again later on - most people's .configs will then have E1000E set. People who still do `cp ancientconfig .config ; make oldconfig' remain screwed. I dunno. I guess I'm not into causing people pain in an attempt to train them to do what we want. This is a popular driver and a *lot* of people are going to: - build new kernel - install new kernel - find it doesn't work, go through quite large amounts of hassle trying to work out why it stopped working. Eventually work out that e1000 stopped working. Eventually work out that it stopped working because we forcibly switched them to a new driver which they didn't know about. - reconfigure kernel - rebuild, reinstall Multiply that by 100s of people (at least). All because Jeff wouldn't apply a one-liner? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 01/10] e1000e: make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000 2007-12-14 23:22 ` Andrew Morton @ 2007-12-14 23:54 ` Stephen Hemminger 2007-12-15 4:57 ` Bill Fink 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2007-12-14 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Morton Cc: Jeff Garzik, netdev, randy.dunlap, auke-jan.h.kok, linux-kernel Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:39:26 -0500 > Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote: > > >> akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote: >> >>> From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> >>> >>> Make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000. So people's >>> machiens don't stop working when they use oldconfig. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> >>> Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> >>> Cc: Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> >>> --- >>> >>> drivers/net/Kconfig | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff -puN drivers/net/Kconfig~e1000e-make-e1000e-default-to-the-same-kconfig-setting-as-e1000 drivers/net/Kconfig >>> --- a/drivers/net/Kconfig~e1000e-make-e1000e-default-to-the-same-kconfig-setting-as-e1000 >>> +++ a/drivers/net/Kconfig >>> @@ -1986,6 +1986,7 @@ config E1000_DISABLE_PACKET_SPLIT >>> config E1000E >>> tristate "Intel(R) PRO/1000 PCI-Express Gigabit Ethernet support" >>> depends on PCI >>> + default E1000 >>> >> I am not inclined to apply this one. This practice, applied over time, >> will tend to accumulate weird 'default' and 'select' statements. >> >> So I think the breakage that occurs is mitigated by two factors: >> 1) kernel hackers that do their own configs are expected to be able to >> figure this stuff. >> 2) kernel builders (read: distros, mainly) are expected to have put >> thought into the Kconfig selection and driver migration strategies. >> >> PCI IDs move across drivers from time, and we don't want to apply these >> sorts changes: Viewed in the long term, the suggested patch is merely a >> temporary change to allow kernel experts to more easily deal with the >> PCI ID migration across drivers. >> >> I would prefer simply to communicate to kernel experts and builders >> about a Kconfig issue that could potentially their booting/networking... >> because this patch is only needed if the kernel experts do not already >> know about a necessary config update. >> > > You can take it out again later on - most people's .configs will then have > E1000E set. People who still do `cp ancientconfig .config ; make oldconfig' > remain screwed. > Sounds like something build system should help with. Some more user friendly syntax for dealing with issues of driver conversion. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 01/10] e1000e: make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000 2007-12-14 23:22 ` Andrew Morton 2007-12-14 23:54 ` Stephen Hemminger @ 2007-12-15 4:57 ` Bill Fink 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Bill Fink @ 2007-12-15 4:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Morton Cc: Jeff Garzik, netdev, randy.dunlap, auke-jan.h.kok, linux-kernel On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:39:26 -0500 > Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote: > > > akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote: > > > From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> > > > > > > Make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000. So people's > > > machiens don't stop working when they use oldconfig. > > > > > I am not inclined to apply this one. This practice, applied over time, > > will tend to accumulate weird 'default' and 'select' statements. > > > > So I think the breakage that occurs is mitigated by two factors: > > 1) kernel hackers that do their own configs are expected to be able to > > figure this stuff. > > 2) kernel builders (read: distros, mainly) are expected to have put > > thought into the Kconfig selection and driver migration strategies. > > > > PCI IDs move across drivers from time, and we don't want to apply these > > sorts changes: Viewed in the long term, the suggested patch is merely a > > temporary change to allow kernel experts to more easily deal with the > > PCI ID migration across drivers. > > > > I would prefer simply to communicate to kernel experts and builders > > about a Kconfig issue that could potentially their booting/networking... > > because this patch is only needed if the kernel experts do not already > > know about a necessary config update. > > You can take it out again later on - most people's .configs will then have > E1000E set. People who still do `cp ancientconfig .config ; make oldconfig' > remain screwed. I was thinking the same thing. Leave it in for 2 or 3 major versions and then remove it (something analogous to the timeframe for a feature removal). And during the interim period, add something like the following to the Kconfig help text: Note some hardware that was previously supported by the e1000 driver is now only handled by the e1000e driver. If unsure and you previously used the e1000 driver, say Y or M here. > I dunno. I guess I'm not into causing people pain in an attempt to train > them to do what we want. This is a popular driver and a *lot* of people > are going to: > > - build new kernel > > - install new kernel > > - find it doesn't work, go through quite large amounts of hassle trying > to work out why it stopped working. Eventually work out that e1000 > stopped working. Eventually work out that it stopped working because we > forcibly switched them to a new driver which they didn't know about. > > - reconfigure kernel > > - rebuild, reinstall Having been there, done that, it's definitely a pain. It's especially painful when you're doing it remotely, and since the network no longer works, you can't get into the system anymore. > Multiply that by 100s of people (at least). All because Jeff wouldn't > apply a one-liner? -Bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-12-15 4:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <200712140002.lBE02pUb025505@imap1.linux-foundation.org>
2007-12-14 20:39 ` [patch 01/10] e1000e: make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000 Jeff Garzik
2007-12-14 22:39 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-12-14 23:17 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-12-15 0:02 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-12-14 23:22 ` Andrew Morton
2007-12-14 23:54 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-12-15 4:57 ` Bill Fink
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox