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 e
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
David Miller wrote:
> From: Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:20:26 -0400
>
>> 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 trie
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
From: Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:20:26 -0400
> 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.
>
> People ar
From: "Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:01:21 -0700
> We help everyone out, and if you merge this patch you will prevent
> users from getting to us for support in the first place.
If using the bad eeprom has to be explicitly enabled by the user, your
argument holds no wate
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:40:01 -0400
> 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
> People aren't going to report this as a bug. They aren't going to try out
> patches,
> they're going to do what I did and stick another network card in the box and
> go on with life.
>
> Our users deserve better than this.
Agreed. By all means warn people, or give them a 1-800 Intel number to
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 pe
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 09:18 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
Adam Jackson wrote:
> When the EEPROM gets corrupted, you can fix it with ethtool, but
> only if
> the module loads and creates a network device. But, without this
Kok, Auke wrote:
Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 09:18 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
Adam Jackson wrote:
When the EEPROM gets corrupted, you can fix it with ethtool, but only if
the module loads and creates a network device. But, without this option,
if the EEPROM is corrupted, the driver
11 matches
Mail list logo
