Re: [E1000-devel] [next-net PATCH] drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e:fix unregistered net_device ethX name output by e1000e

[Ethan Zhao]

Jeff,
  That is OK, I would like to have a test if could share Allan's patch
for this issue.

Thanks.
Ethan


On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Jeff Kirsher
<jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It appears you are not understanding what Bruce and I have said.
>
> I am not adding your patch to my queue because Bruce has already a patch
> submitted to my queue which resolves the problem you reported. ÂSo there
> is no need for a different patch from you to resolve the issue because
> it has already been taken care of by Bruce's patch.
>
> So NACK, and there is no need to begin another patch for this issue.
>
> If you find a different problem or issue with one of our drivers, feel
> free to submit a patch. ÂI am always open to patches from the community,
> just in this particular case, Bruce already had a patch that resolves
> this issue (in a more complete way).
>
> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 23:02 +0800, Ethan.kernel@gmail wrote:
>> Jeffrey,
>>
>> Â Â Â Â So, Could you help to put this patch in your queue if it worth 2 cents for some Linux users ?
>>
>> Or a NACK for any reason let me know just throw it and begin another.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ethan
>>
>> å 2012-6-7ï22:33ï"Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@xxxxxxxxx> åéï
>>
>> > Yes, my patch is different from yours.
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Ethan Zhao [mailto:ethan.kernel@xxxxxxxxx]
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 6:24 PM
>> >> To: Allan, Bruce W
>> >> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [next-net PATCH]
>> >> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e: fix unregistered net_device ethX
>> >> name output by e1000e
>> >>
>> >> Allan, So they are different patch ?
>> >> jeffrey, right ?
>> >>
>> >> Ethan
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Allan, Bruce W
>> >> <bruce.w.allan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>> From: Jeff Kirsher [mailto:jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx]
>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 5:41 PM
>> >>>> To: Ethan Zhao
>> >>>> Cc: e1000-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux NICS; LKML
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [next-net PATCH]
>> >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e: fix unregistered net_device ethX
>> >>>> name output by e1000e
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 22:57 +0800, Ethan Zhao wrote:
>> >>>>> commit ca3ccc6835943287b6f69e973c126a02bc4de409
>> >>>>> Author: ethan.zhao <ethan.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >>>>> Date: Â Wed Jun 6 07:32:11 2012 -0700
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Â Â Â Â modified: Â drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/param.c
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Â Â While e1000e_check_options() is called, netdev is not
>> >>>> registered,
>> >>>>> so the
>> >>>>> Â Â e1000e driver will print out confused ethernet interface name
>> >>>>> (unregistered net_device) :
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Â Â e1000e 0000:04:00.0:(unregistered net_device): Interrupt
>> >>>>> Throttling Rate (ints/sec) set to dynamic conservative mode
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Â Â So change e_info() back to dev_printk() by simply redefine
>> >> the
>> >>>>> e_info macro used by
>> >>>>> Â Â e1000e_check_options() and e1000_validate_option
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Â Â after applied this patch, we got:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Â Â e1000e 0000:04:00.0: Interrupt Throttling Rate (ints/sec) set
>> >> to
>> >>>>> dynamic conservative mode
>> >>>>> Â Â e1000e 0000:04:00.0: irq 95 for MSI/MSI-X
>> >>>>
>> >>>> NACK, I currently have a patch in my queue from Bruce Allan to
>> >> resolve
>> >>>> this issue. ÂI should be pushing the patch upstream in a few days.
>> >>>
>> >>> For clarification, the problem with the NACK'ed patch is it is
>> >> missing a
>> >>> number of instances of the same issue that is meant to be addressed
>> >> by the
>> >>> patch.
>> >>>
>
>
--
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/