From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add eeprom_bad_csum_allow module option to e1000. Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:53:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20071023165349.6c9bf853@freepuppy.rosehill> References: <11931515302013-git-send-email-ajax@redhat.com> <471E1ECD.80002@intel.com> <1193156487.26974.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <471E2AD0.1000500@intel.com> <471E5C21.8030908@garzik.org> <20071023212026.GF7793@redhat.com> <471E7DCA.9030700@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dave Jones , Jeff Garzik , "Kok, Auke" , Adam Jackson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , netdev To: "Kok, Auke" Return-path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:45034 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752150AbXJWXyV (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:54:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <471E7DCA.9030700@intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:03:38 -0700 "Kok, Auke" 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