On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:03:38 -0700 "Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > 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? > > > Auke What about a compromise like "ignore_checksum" module option? That way users with bad checksums wouldn't just ignore the problem (no one reads console logs), but would have a way to correct the checksum. There are many reasons would want the ability to fix the problem themselves without asking Intel. -- Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
