Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756882AbXJXFlW (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:41:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754466AbXJXFlM (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:41:12 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:54289 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750893AbXJXFlK (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:41:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:38:15 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: "Kok, Auke" Cc: Jeff Garzik , Adam Jackson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , netdev Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add eeprom_bad_csum_allow module option to e1000. Message-ID: <20071024053815.GC28298@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , "Kok, Auke" , Jeff Garzik , Adam Jackson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , netdev References: <11931515302013-git-send-email-ajax@redhat.com> <471E1ECD.80002@intel.com> <1193156487.26974.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <471E2AD0.1000500@intel.com> <471E5C21.8030908@garzik.org> <20071023212026.GF7793@redhat.com> <471E7DCA.9030700@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <471E7DCA.9030700@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1788 Lines: 39 On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:03:38PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote: > Dave Jones wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:40:01PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > > > In any case, this patch should not be merged. We often send it around to users to > > > > debug their issue in case it involves eeproms, but merging it will just conceal > > > > the real issue and all of a sudden a flood of people stop reporting *real* issues > > > > to us. > > > > > > Sorry, I disagree. Just as with e100, if there is a clear way the user > > > can recover their setup -- and Adam says his was effective -- I don't > > > see why we should be denying users the ability to use their own hardware. > > > > Indeed. This is a common enough problem that not including it causes more pain > > than its worth. I have two affected boxes myself that I actually thought > > the hardware was dead before I tried ajax's patch. > > > look: You should have reported this to us and you didn't. Now you are using the > fact that you did not report it as an argument which is out of place. you're missing the point. It looks like a hardware failure. Why would I report this? > why do you say it is common? how often have you seen this and not reported it back > to our support? are you willingly trying to frustrate this issue? Not at all. The only frustration here is that I used to have a kernel that worked, upgraded, and thought that my hardware was broken. How many other users thought the same ? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - 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/