[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080410175503.GA11440@colo.lackof.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:55:03 -0600
From: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, jeff@...zik.org, matthew@....cx,
auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
davem@...emloft.net, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
john.ronciak@...el.com, bruce.w.allan@...el.com, greg@...ah.com,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, rjw@...k.pl
Subject: Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was: Re:
[regression] e1000e broke e1000)
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:30:34AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
> The fact that some *other* driver that I'd never ever enabled in my life
> suddenly supports them is irrelevant - it's not in my list of "hardware I
> have", and it's not even getting compiled.
If e1000e is not getting compiled, my understanding was the original e1000
driver will claim whatever devices it historically has.
> And no, I'm not talking about some theoretical "this could happen" thing.
> I hit exactly that with commit 040babf9d84e7010c457e9ce69e9eb1c27927c9e (I
> then thought that the new driver didn't even work for me, but that turned
> out to be an unrelated bug).
>
> It's very irritating when a working machine suddenly just stops working
> because some config option just changed its meaning. VERY irritating.
Agreed. I like Ingo's Kconfig patch which forces both drivers
(e1000 and e1000e) to be built the same way (ie both modules or both
builtin).
grant
--
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