netdev - Re: e1000: backport ich9 support from 7.5.5 ?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:11:25 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
	Jason Lunz <lunz@...lexsecurity.com>,
	Mark McLoughlin <markmc@...hat.com>,
	e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e1000: backport ich9 support from 7.5.5 ?

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:39:20 -0700
> "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com> wrote:
> 
>> That's why we want to introduce a second e1000 driver (named differently, pick 
>> any name) that contains the new code base, side-by-side into the kernel with the 
>> current e1000.
> 
> Sounds like a reasonable approach to me (it has plenty of precedent).  But
> I forget what all the other issues were, so ignore me.

Given past history with duplicate drivers and the problems that they 
cause -- I know, I've caused some of those problems :( -- I strongly 
recommend against when it can be avoided.

Leaving e1000 with current hardware, and a new e1001 for newer hardware 
should be easier to manage for all involved, without the headaches that 
duplicate drivers cause.

An "e1001" approach also means we have a much greater chance of 
encouraging Intel down the path of clean driver-ness.

	Jeff

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html