From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Acker Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix e100 rx path on ARM (was [PATCH] e100 rx: or s and el bits) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:42:53 -0400 Message-ID: <4665A09D.6050701@roinet.com> References: <4654B2E4.9010308@roinet.com> <039d8ee49a8dfcbff8695b19d0a1a5c4@bga.com> <465C4DBE.6000205@roinet.com> <94c8ff9069a77568513a9a1d1e60012d@bga.com> <4660856E.80403@roinet.com> <4665664D.30906@roinet.com> <46659CF7.2070003@intel.com> <20070605173904.GP31565@havoc.gtf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Kok, Auke" , e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jesse Brandeburg , Milton Miller , Scott Feldman , John Ronciak , Jeff Kirsher , Jeff Garzik To: Jeff Garzik Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070605173904.GP31565@havoc.gtf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: e1000-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: e1000-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:27:19AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote: >> We need to make sure that now that we're getting closer to 2.6.22 we don't >> end up killing e100 in it. Should we drop the current fixes in it to be on >> the safe side and aim for 2.6.23? I would hate to see an untested codepath >> breaking e100 on something like ppc or mips... that will be very painful > > I certainly agree with this assessment... > > I've been wondering if, based on all this recent work, we should revert > the s-bit stuff and wait for 2.6.23. I think so. It will be no worse then it was and make the patch that fixes it clearer. -Ack ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/