From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jeff Kirsher" Subject: Re: [PATCH -net-next 1/4] firmware: convert e100 driver to request_firmware() Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:49:38 -0800 Message-ID: <9929d2390901071049i73027b13j8910f6c6dcd9ce92@mail.gmail.com> References: <9929d2390812301433pae01ea4g5bfdef6d4d4c7a9c@mail.gmail.com> <20090104.160611.252248503.davem@davemloft.net> <9929d2390901041820h4cf51e2h3612108c516b6869@mail.gmail.com> <20090104.213402.12464178.davem@davemloft.net> <9929d2390901071023s590f439fre15696786f098b81@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jaswinder@infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: "David Miller" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9929d2390901071023s590f439fre15696786f098b81@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: e1000-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 9:34 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: "Jeff Kirsher" >> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 18:20:24 -0800 >> >>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:06 PM, David Miller wrote: >>> > From: "Jeff Kirsher" >>> > Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:33:36 -0800 >>> > >>> >> Please hold off on committing, until we have had ample time to do some >>> >> regression testing. While this patch may have been in linux-next, >>> >> this is the first we have seen of it. >>> >> >>> >> I am concerned that IPMI traffic will be adversely affected by this patch. >>> > >>> > Status please? >>> > -- >>> >>> The only testing left to do is to make sure that ICH devices still >>> work and to make sure the IPMI traffic is not affected by this patch. >>> All other testing looks good. I am sorry that I have been slow to >>> give status, the holiday's have put a strain on available resources. >> >> Ok, thanks for the update. >> -- >> > > So here is the latest testing update... > > The only testing that we were not able to do was the IPMI testing, > because of the lack of resources. All other testing passed. > > While all other testing passed, I am concerned about not being able to > test whether or not this change affects the ability to pass IPMI > traffic. I am not sure if the "gain" of using request_firmware() out > weighs the potential risk that IPMI traffic may be broken with this > patch. I guess I wondering what the gain is in using the > request_firmware() function? > > From past experience with IPMI traffic and the e100, the loading of > the microcode in the correct manner greatly affected whether IPMI > traffic would pass or not. > > -- > Cheers, > Jeff > Removed bad email address (linux.nics@intel.com) from CC. That email address is no longer valid. -- Cheers, Jeff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It is the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Xq1LFB