[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <475F00A2.6020406@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:26:58 -0800
From: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:13:52 -0800 "Martin Bligh" <mbligh@...gle.com> 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
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists