Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:52:31 -0700 | From | "Kok, Auke" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix |
| |
Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:23:50 -0700 Kok, Auke wrote: > >> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> * Kok, Auke <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> config E1000E_ENABLED >>>>>> - def_bool E1000E != n >>>>>> + def_bool E1000E = y || ((E1000E != n) && (E1000 = E1000E)) >>>>> Uh, that's /not/ what Ingo's patch does. His patch makes e1000 >>>>> claim the e1000e IDs if e1000 is built-in and e1000e is a module. >>>> so that's definately _not_ what I would like to see at all. Matthew >>>> points out that this will just prolong users to use e1000 instead of >>>> e1000e (which is what they should be encouraged to switch to in those >>>> cases). >>>> >>>> so I'm dropping my ACK >>> why you want to cripple an existing, rather well working and popular >>> Linux driver is beyond me. >> Because we decided a long time ago to do this driver split. And everyone at that >> time agreed with that, and we set out to do this. And part of that plan was to >> move (not copy) the device IDs over. >> >> We accepted that that might break some kernel developers' systems in the process >> and consulted several vendors and distros if they were OK with the change and they >> all agreed with the plan. >> >> I do not want people with PCI Express e1000 cards to use e1000 for any day longer >> than is strictly needed, and I certainly do not want to prolong the period where >> both drivers could work on their adapters. That will be a far bigger nightmare for >> me than just a few kernel developers having a bad day. >> >> I guarantee, I will get e-mails about 2.6.25+e1000(e) issues for far longer then >> you guys :) >> >> Users will outnumber us kernel developers in complaints if we keep the situation >> unclear to them, and we already told them that they need to switch to e1000e for >> their PCI Express devices. If we now do stuff like what you proposed in that >> patch, we just prolong this confusion. That cannot be good for anyone. Imagine if >> distro's start picking random device IDs or worse. Stuff like that is already >> happening, and discussions like these just add to the confusion. >> >> Again - If there is a way to auto-enable e1000e in the right way so that more >> systems migrate better then I'm all for it (even if forcing E1000E=y). But it >> seems that the various patches proposed don't cut it and frankly Kconfig is >> completely inadequate as a hardware enabling script since it knows absolutely >> nothing about the hardware in the first place. And it wasn't meant for that >> either. `make oldconfig` is not the answer ;). > > It would make much more sense IMO to add > CONFIG_E1000E=y > to defconfig ... and also to change > CONFIG_FUSION=y > to > CONFIG_FUSION=n > while there :)
that first part (for x86 at least) I already sent (straight to linus even) after same comment from Andy.
Auke
| |