netdev - Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix

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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0804111556200.3143@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@...ervon.org>
cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	e1000-list <e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-pci maillist <linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	"Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense to turn E1000 into a option that does nothing 
> except select both E1000E and E1000_PCI, and have those two be the options 
> that build drivers?

Yes, that sounds fine too. Although you need to add a

	depends on PCI

to the E1000 thing (because the "select" would not honor the dependencies 
that E1000E and E1000_PCI have).

However:

> Then, after a while, we drop the E1000 option entirely

I agree we could, but as I tried to explain, I fundamentally don't think 
we _should_.

Why should people _ever_ be asked about whether they want "E1000 PCI 
support" vs "E1000 PCI-E" support, when it's almost impossible to tell 
which kind of card you have?

In other words, I suspect that anybody who selects E1000 support would 
actually want the "support both" case, and simply not care. Unless they 
were _really_ deeply aware of their hardware.

> AFAICT, this makes "make oldconfig" always give the same support that the 
> the earlier kernel had and people get set it to what they actually want if 
> they notice.

.. but that said, I think your patch is certainly better than what we have 
now (or what Ingo was complaining about for the next merge window). I 
certainly could live with it. I would just suggest against ever then 
removing that "generic E1000" choice.

		Linus
--
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