On Mon 2017-12-18 13:24:40, Neftin, Sasha wrote:Pavel, before ask for revert - let's check Benjamin's patch following to his previous patch. Previous patch was not competed and latest one come to complete changes.
On 12/18/2017 12:26, Pavel Machek wrote:Jacob said, in another email:
No response AFAICT. I guess I should test revertingGenerally speaking, e1000 maintainence has been handled very poorly over....In v4.15-rc2+, network manager can not see my ethernet card, and
manual attempts to ifconfig it up did not really help, either.
02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82573L Gigabit Ethernet
I don't see the patch in latest mainline. Not having ethernetAny ideas ?Yes , 19110cfbb34d4af0cdfe14cd243f3b09dc95b013 broke it.
Fix there :
is... somehow annoying. What is going on there?
the past few years, I have to say.
Fixes take forever to propagate even when someone other than the
maintainer provides a working and tested fix, just like this case.
Jeff, please take e1000 maintainence seriously and get these critical
bug fixes propagated.
19110cfbb34d4af0cdfe14cd243f3b09dc95b013, then ask you for revert?
Before ask for reverting 19110cfbb..., please, check if follow patch of
Benjamin work for you http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/846825/
# Digging into this, the problem is complicated. The original bug
# assumed behavior of the .check_for_link call, which is universally not
# I think the correct fix is to revert 19110cfbb34d ("e1000e: Separate
# signaling for link check/link up", 2017-10-10) and find a more proper solution.
...which makes me think that revert is preffered?