Re: [PATCH] eepro100.c, kernel 2.4.1

From: Alan Cox (
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 02:42:52 EST

> It's the printk that gets it wrong, although that's harmless.
> Intel's documentation states that the bug does NOT exist if the
> bits 0 and 1 in eeprom[3] are 1. Thus, the workaround is correct,
> the printk is wrong.

So why does it fix the problem for him. His report and your reply don't
make sense viewed together

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 21:00:11 EST