Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix (was: Re:[regression] e1000e broke e1000)

[Grant Grundler]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:30:34AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
> The fact that some *other* driver that I'd never ever enabled in my life 
> suddenly supports them is irrelevant - it's not in my list of "hardware I 
> have", and it's not even getting compiled.

If e1000e is not getting compiled, my understanding was the original e1000
driver will claim whatever devices it historically has.

> And no, I'm not talking about some theoretical "this could happen" thing. 
> I hit exactly that with commit 040babf9d84e7010c457e9ce69e9eb1c27927c9e (I 
> then thought that the new driver didn't even work for me, but that turned 
> out to be an unrelated bug).
> 
> It's very irritating when a working machine suddenly just stops working 
> because some config option just changed its meaning. VERY irritating.

Agreed. I like Ingo's Kconfig patch which forces both drivers
(e1000 and e1000e) to be built the same way (ie both modules or both
builtin).

grant
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/