On 7/10/07, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If there were any benefit to removing a working driver I would at least
be able to see it as a resources issue, but as far as I can see you just
seem to have a personal preference for the e100 driver and want to force
others to use it because y
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 01:27:55PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
For how many years do you know that there's a new and actively
maintained e100 driver for your hardware?
And if you don't follow a stable line like the 2.6.16 kernel or a
distribution kernel it's simply a part
Kok, Auke wrote:
as discussed before we really want to avoid having (1) an unmaintained
bitrotting driver for X and (2) one that should work because people are
being paid to take care of it.
The community has always encouraged us to work with us fixing the last
issues in e100 to make it work
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 01:27:55PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 12:01:56PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>
>>> Please do not make unnecessary kernel changes which require changes in
>>> our systems.
>>>
>
>>> If you think the e100 driver fixes
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 12:01:56PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Please do not make unnecessary kernel changes which require changes in our
systems.
If you think the e100 driver fixes your problems use it and be happy. But
since you don't have to test
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 12:01:56PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Please do not make unnecessary kernel changes which require changes in our
systems.
If you think the e100 driver fixes your problems use it and be happy. But
since you don't have to test system behavior
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 12:01:56PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Please do not make unnecessary kernel changes which require changes in our
> systems.
Welcome to the kernel 2.6 development model.
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>> Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch contains the overd
Please do not make unnecessary kernel changes which require changes in
our systems.
Kok, Auke wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch contains the overdue removal of the eepro100 driver.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The hardware supported by this driver i
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch contains the overdue removal of the eepro100 driver.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The hardware supported by this driver is still in use, thanks. It's
probably easier to leave the eepro100 driver in than find anyone who
want
Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch contains the overdue removal of the eepro100 driver.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The hardware supported by this driver is still in use, thanks. It's
probably easier to leave the eepro100 driver in than find anyone who
wants to investigate why t
Kok, Auke wrote:
this needs to be resceduled for 2.6.24 (at least). We're hoping to merge
the proposed changes (still being worked on) in .23. Milton Miller and
David Acker are working on that.
Quite agreed.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch contains the overdue removal of the eepro100 driver.
...
this needs to be resceduled for 2.6.24 (at least). We're hoping to merge the
proposed changes (still being worked on) in .23. Milton Miller and David Acker
are working on that.
Auke
-
To unsubscribe fro
12 matches
Mail list logo
