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.1.00.0804131410340.2982@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
cc:	Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@...ervon.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, 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, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > .. 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.
> 
> You mean never ever remove PCI-E support from e1000?

No. I mean never ever remove the *configure* level thinking that "e1000 is 
e1000".

There is no sense in *ever* showing it as two drivers to users, because 
users do not see them as separate chipsets. They look identical, down to 
the part names.

If it's a single family, and users can't even easily tell whether they 
have version 1 or version 2 (PCI vs PCI-E), you shouldn't even ask them. 
You should literally ask them: "do you want e1000 support".

That's it.

Once you have asked them that, you can then decide "ok, if you *really* 
know what version of the chip you have, you can decide to only get limited 
driver support".

But that's a secondary thing from a user perspective.

See the patch I already sent out.

			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