Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
Roberto Nibali wrote:
Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that
we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails
but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for
everybody.
Needs to happen, though...
Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
Roberto Nibali wrote:
Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that
we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails
but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for
everybody.
Needs to happen, though...
Roberto Nibali wrote:
>>> Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that
>>> we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails
>>> but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for
>>> everybody.
>>>
>>> Needs to happen, though...
>>
>> It
Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're
not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100
works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody.
Needs to happen, though...
It seems that several Tyan Opteron base system that were
Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're
not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100
works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody.
Needs to happen, though...
It seems that several Tyan Opteron base system that were
Roberto Nibali wrote:
Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that
we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails
but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for
everybody.
Needs to happen, though...
It seems that several Tyan
On 3/28/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kok, Auke wrote:
Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're
not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100
works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody.
Needs to happen,
Kok, Auke wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the
questions raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the questions
raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e100 didn't work on
Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the questions
raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e100 didn't work on some
IBM rackmount
Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the questions
raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e100 didn't work on some
IBM rackmount
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the questions
raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e100 didn't work on
Kok, Auke wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the
questions raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e100
On 3/28/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kok, Auke wrote:
Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're
not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100
works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody.
Needs to happen,
On 1/2/07, Eric Piel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I've been using e100 for years with no problem, however more by
curiosity than necessity I'd like to know how will be handled the
devices which are (supposedly) supported by eepro100 and not by e100?
According to "modinfo eepro100" and
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver.
>
I'm sorry to disturb the schedule, but I'm not sure right now if this
pending issue of the e100 was meanwhile solved or declared a non-issue:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/8/105
Auke, can you confirm that it
Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver.
I'm sorry to disturb the schedule, but I'm not sure right now if this
pending issue of the e100 was meanwhile solved or declared a non-issue:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/8/105
Auke, can you confirm that it
On 1/2/07, Eric Piel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I've been using e100 for years with no problem, however more by
curiosity than necessity I'd like to know how will be handled the
devices which are (supposedly) supported by eepro100 and not by e100?
According to modinfo eepro100 and modinfo
02.01.2007 22:57, Adrian Bunk wrote/a écrit:
This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver.
Hi, I've been using e100 for years with no problem, however more by
curiosity than necessity I'd like to know how will be handled the
devices which are (supposedly) supported by
02.01.2007 22:57, Adrian Bunk wrote/a écrit:
This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver.
Hi, I've been using e100 for years with no problem, however more by
curiosity than necessity I'd like to know how will be handled the
devices which are (supposedly) supported by
20 matches
Mail list logo
