From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kok, Auke" Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:26:58 -0800 Message-ID: <475F00A2.6020406@intel.com> References: <20071204211701.994dfce6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <33307c790712110813h23def95dvd068b7226e9fcd36@mail.gmail.com> <20071211123705.844aac24.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Martin Bligh , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20071211123705.844aac24.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:13:52 -0800 "Martin Bligh" wrote: > >>> >>> - Lots of device IDs have been removed from the e1000 driver and moved >>> over >>> to e1000e. So if your e1000 stops working, you forgot to set >>> CONFIG_E1000E. >>> >>> >> Wouldn't it make sense to just default this to on if E1000 was on, rather >> than screwing >> everybody for no good reason (plus breaking all the automated testing, etc >> etc)? >> Much though I love random refactoring, it is fairly painful to just keep >> changing the >> names of things. > > (cc netdev and Auke) > > Yes, that would be very sensible. CONFIG_E1000E should default to whatever > CONFIG_E1000 was set to. which is "y" for x86 and friends, ppc, arm and ia64 through 'defconfig'. the Kconfig files do not have defaults in them. I can send a patch to adjust the defconfig files, would that be OK? I certainly think that would be reasonable, I dislike setting defaults through defconfig for network drivers myself and rather would not do that. Auke