[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1313066778.2591.1280.camel@deadeye>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:46:18 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: hayeswang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
Cc: dwmw2@...radead.org, romieu@...zoreil.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [linux-firmware v2 1/2] rtl_nic: update firmware forRTL8111E-VL
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 11:41 +0800, hayeswang wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:ben@...adent.org.uk]
> > > +File: rtl_nic/rtl8168e-3.fw (Version: rtl8168e-3_0.0.1)
> > [...]
> >
> > Please don't write the version in yet another way. It should be:
> >
>
> I just think if someone replaces the firmware with another one, I could check
> the firmware through the information without checking the ram data.
> For example, someone renames the rtl8168f-1.fw to rtl8168e-3.fw and replaces the
> original rtl8168e-3.fw. Through ethtool to show the version of the firmware, I
> could know the firmware is invalid. If the version only contain the value 0.0.1,
> I must compare the binary file to find out the result.
[...]
You're talking about the version string inside the firmware file. I see
the value of including the name there. However, in the WHENCE file it
is redundant.
But I really don't care that much.
Ben.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists