Subject: Re: [git patches] net driver fixes
From: Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <46EAD049.4020107@garzik.org>
References: <20070913053022.GA16891@havoc.gtf.org>
	 <1189793598.2508.4.camel@xo-3E-67-34.localdomain>
	 <46EAD049.4020107@garzik.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:31:17 -0400
Message-Id: <1189794677.2508.19.camel@xo-3E-67-34.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 961
Lines: 24

On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 14:17 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Dan Williams wrote:
> > WTF?  why would the default be to _not_ propagate carrier state?  Are
> > there some mitigating circumstances that require this driver to not
> > notify the stack of carrier on/off?  Userspace stuff really should know
> > about the carrier state, and this disables it by default.
> 
> 
> The commit explains that...

I admit that I probably don't understand the system architecture of
where ehea would be used, but would this
cause /sys/class/net/ethX/carrier to be TRUE even if the device has no
carrier?  That seems quite wrong IMHO.  When does ehea not have a
carrier?  And in that case, does sysfs say 1 or 0 for the carrier?

Dan


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/