From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vitaly Bordug Subject: Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] remove drivers/net/eepro100.c Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:34:37 +0300 Message-ID: <20060118133437.3840827f@vitb.dev.rtsoft.ru> References: <20060105181826.GD12313@stusta.de> <20060115161958.07e3c7f1@vitb.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20060115160340.6f8cc7d6@localhost.localdomain> <20060117184834.GD19398@stusta.de> <56a8daef0601171427s75894fid0f8c4f9e2b28e50@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Adrian Bunk , Stephen Hemminger , jgarzik@pobox.com, saw@saw.sw.com.sg, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: John Ronciak In-Reply-To: <56a8daef0601171427s75894fid0f8c4f9e2b28e50@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:27:16 -0800 John Ronciak wrote: > We don't of any problems reported against e100 that have not been > talked about in this thread (in old ARCH types). I think the eepro100 > driver should be removed from the config "just in case" but we are in > full support of the e100 driver and if somebody says that it's not > working on one of the different ARCHs we are willing to work with them > to get it fixed. The problem is that we don't have all these > different ARCH systems around to test against. > > Another thing is that removal of the driver (or disabling the config) > will hopefully force the issue in that people with these ARCHs will > use the e100 and if they have problems we can get them fixed in the > e100 driver. At this point nobody seems to be able to define a "real" > problem other than talking about it. Ok then, let's go ahead, but I vote for config exclusion as a first step, so if anybody will run into problems, will use old mature stuff until e100 get fixed. Due to rollback the removed driver - back and forth in killing/resurrecting stuff is not a good example to follow within the kernel. Generally speaking, e100 should replace eepro*, but I can see no reason for rush in doing that one-step. -- Sincerely, Vitaly