Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Apr 2008 22:04:33 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix |
| |
* Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote: >> >>>> We've got three thousand Kconfig options - it is clearly not realistic >>>> for users to keep such details in mind to avoid pitfalls. >>> Agreed -- hence the multiple announcements, including in this thread, to >>> put said details into mind. >> >> which part of "it took a kernel developer more than an hour to figure >> out why his laptop had a dead network interface" did you not >> understand? Whatever you did, it was not apparent to me. I dont >> follow every tiny detail of the e1000 driver family, nor do 99%+ [*] >> of our users. > > You do follow LKML, where multiple announcements have and are being > posted.
... what you say is contrary to the well-known regression rules of the upstream kernel. You cannot seriously expect users to follow mailings related to the 8+ million lines of code kernel they are utilizing, just to not end up with a dead networking interface ....
so please comment on the fix i sent. The patch solves the problem i had and it's end of this story as far as i'm concerned. Do you have any strong technical argument why it should not be applied?
Ingo
| |