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 14:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20071023.145339.55504234.davem@davemloft.net> References: <471E2AD0.1000500@intel.com> <471E5C21.8030908@garzik.org> <20071023212026.GF7793@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jeff@garzik.org, auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com, ajax@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: davej@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:49108 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751917AbXJWVxM (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:53:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20071023212026.GF7793@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Dave Jones Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:20:26 -0400 > 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. > > People aren't going to report this as a bug. They aren't going to > try out patches, they're going to do what I did and stick another > network card in the box and go on with life. > > Our users deserve better than this. Seconded. The resistence to this patch is just flat-out rediculious, just like it was in the e100 case. And I think all of this "e1000 is different!" talk is merely a scarecrow for the fact that Intel simply doesn't want this patch merged for some other reason.