On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:27:16 -0800
John Ronciak <[email protected]> wrote:
> We don't of any problems reported against e100 that have not been
> talked about in this thread (in old ARCH types). I think the eepro100
> driver should be removed from the config "just in case" but we are in
> full support of the e100 driver and if somebody says that it's not
> working on one of the different ARCHs we are willing to work with them
> to get it fixed. The problem is that we don't have all these
> different ARCH systems around to test against.
>
> Another thing is that removal of the driver (or disabling the config)
> will hopefully force the issue in that people with these ARCHs will
> use the e100 and if they have problems we can get them fixed in the
> e100 driver. At this point nobody seems to be able to define a "real"
> problem other than talking about it.
Ok then, let's go ahead, but
I vote for config exclusion as a first step,
so if anybody will run into problems, will use old mature stuff until e100 get fixed.
Due to rollback the removed driver - back and forth in killing/resurrecting stuff is not a good example to follow within the kernel.
Generally speaking, e100 should replace eepro*, but I can see no reason for rush in doing that one-step.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
