From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add eeprom_bad_csum_allow module option to e1000. Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20071023.144857.03983847.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1193156487.26974.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <471E2AD0.1000500@intel.com> <471E5C21.8030908@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com, ajax@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: jeff@garzik.org Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:37538 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751564AbXJWVsa (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:48:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <471E5C21.8030908@garzik.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Jeff Garzik Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:40:01 -0400 > 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. I'd like to second these sentiments. Just because you can come up with cases where using a wrong eeprom would fail, does not mean the facility should not be provided at all.