Re: [PATCH 1/1] e1000: minor bug on debug module parm

2005-07-29 Thread Scott Feldman
On Jul 29, 2005, at 12:53 AM, Holger Eitzenberger wrote: Another drawback of your approach is that it "cummulative", if I set debug=13 I get in fact output for almost all flags, which might be a lot. Why not pass the flags directly (e. g. debug=0x11ff)? Use ethtool -s ethX msglvl to set

Re: [PATCH 1/1] e1000: minor bug on debug module parm

2005-07-29 Thread Holger Eitzenberger
Jesse Brandeburg wrote: Please don't apply this patch, we need the NETIF_MSG_LINK messages to be printed because most everyone likes to know when their link came up/went down. Then your driver need to be more explicit with it. Some other people will think this is a bug, even more because cur

Re: [PATCH 1/1] e1000: minor bug on debug module parm

2005-07-28 Thread Jesse Brandeburg
On 7/28/05, Holger Eitzenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I found a minor bug in e1000 debug initialization. > > The previous initaliazation resulted in log of level NETIF_MSG_DRV, > NETIF_MSG_PROBE and NETIF_MSG_LINK ('debug' is used as shift factor) > while it obviously was intended that only

[PATCH 1/1] e1000: minor bug on debug module parm

2005-07-28 Thread Holger Eitzenberger
Hi, I found a minor bug in e1000 debug initialization. The previous initaliazation resulted in log of level NETIF_MSG_DRV, NETIF_MSG_PROBE and NETIF_MSG_LINK ('debug' is used as shift factor) while it obviously was intended that only NETIF_MSG_DRV and NETIF_MSG_PROBE should be logged. The a