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

From: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 22:04:33 +0200

* Jeff Garzik <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Jeff Garzik <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>>> We've got three thousand Kconfig options - it is clearly not realistic 
>>>> for users to keep such details in mind to avoid pitfalls.
>>> Agreed -- hence the multiple announcements, including in this thread, to 
>>> put said details into mind.
>>
>> which part of "it took a kernel developer more than an hour to figure 
>> out why his laptop had a dead network interface" did you not 
>> understand? Whatever you did, it was not apparent to me. I dont 
>> follow every tiny detail of the e1000 driver family, nor do 99%+ [*] 
>> of our users.
>
> You do follow LKML, where multiple announcements have and are being 
> posted.

... what you say is contrary to the well-known regression rules of the 
upstream kernel. You cannot seriously expect users to follow mailings 
related to the 8+ million lines of code kernel they are utilizing, just 
to not end up with a dead networking interface ....

so please comment on the fix i sent. The patch solves the problem i had 
and it's end of this story as far as i'm concerned. Do you have any 
strong technical argument why it should not be applied?

	Ingo

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone