From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kok, Auke" Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix e100 rx path on ARM (was [PATCH] e100 rx: or s and el bits) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:43:18 -0700 Message-ID: <4665A0B6.6020902@intel.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=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Milton Miller , Jeff Garzik , David Acker , netdev@vger.kernel.org, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Jeff Kirsher , John Ronciak , Jesse Brandeburg , Scott Feldman To: Jeff Garzik Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:17252 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754771AbXFERnV (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:43:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070605173904.GP31565@havoc.gtf.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org 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. Yes, that's my point. If Milton and David agree I think we should do so immediately. If so, do you want me to write a revert-patch or do you have some magic to do that for me? Auke