DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=JlGfDC07iMIY1J67Ur/piT7gKJEVQ6khkeEIUDK4w6VgXNVr1qd/MQcLaT+/uv2zLQ
         qVkOTILjRPBK2P8NpJg1hrgXZtJapMbOSjCK+0Ku234o/lniSHP3H2iD4ZrVszoiCTtH
         MyOnre7vlb+A1cLWZz2Mf8baMrvJ8eNXHCn5k=
Message-ID: <9929d2390901071049i73027b13j8910f6c6dcd9ce92@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:49:38 -0800
From: "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
To: "David Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -net-next 1/4] firmware: convert e100 driver to request_firmware()
Cc: jaswinder@infradead.org, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-next@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <9929d2390901071023s590f439fre15696786f098b81@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <9929d2390812301433pae01ea4g5bfdef6d4d4c7a9c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090104.160611.252248503.davem@davemloft.net>
	 <9929d2390901041820h4cf51e2h3612108c516b6869@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090104.213402.12464178.davem@davemloft.net>
	 <9929d2390901071023s590f439fre15696786f098b81@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2208
Lines: 60

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Jeff Kirsher
<jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 9:34 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>> From: "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
>> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 18:20:24 -0800
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:06 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>> > From: "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
>>> > Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:33:36 -0800
>>> >
>>> >> Please hold off on committing, until we have had ample time to do some
>>> >> regression testing.  While this patch may have been in linux-next,
>>> >> this is the first we have seen of it.
>>> >>
>>> >> I am concerned that IPMI traffic will be adversely affected by this patch.
>>> >
>>> > Status please?
>>> > --
>>>
>>> The only testing left to do is to make sure that ICH devices still
>>> work and to make sure the IPMI traffic is not affected by this patch.
>>> All other testing looks good.  I am sorry that I have been slow to
>>> give status, the holiday's have put a strain on available resources.
>>
>> Ok, thanks for the update.
>> --
>>
>
> So here is the latest testing update...
>
> The only testing that we were not able to do was the IPMI testing,
> because of the lack of resources.  All other testing passed.
>
> While all other testing passed, I am concerned about not being able to
> test whether or not this change affects the ability to pass IPMI
> traffic.  I am not sure if the "gain" of using request_firmware() out
> weighs the potential risk that IPMI traffic may be broken with this
> patch.  I guess I wondering what the gain is in using the
> request_firmware() function?
>
> From past experience with IPMI traffic and the e100, the loading of
> the microcode in the correct manner greatly affected whether IPMI
> traffic would pass or not.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>

Removed bad email address (linux.nics@intel.com) from CC.  That email
address is no longer valid.

-- 
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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/