From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>,
Danny ter Haar <dth@dth.net>,
wa1ter@myrealbox.com, dth@ncc1701.cistron.net,
Netdev <netdev@oss.sgi.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: Gigabit Kconfig problems with yesterday's update
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 13:06:53 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0405301302020.1632@ppc970.osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040530193706.GG13111@fs.tum.de>
On Sun, 30 May 2004, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>
> This is not sufficient since it's still under the
> "Ethernet (10 or 100Mbit)" menu.
>
> What about the patch below?
>
> config NET_ETHERNET
> - bool "Ethernet (10 or 100Mbit)"
> + bool "Ethernet (10/100/1000/10000 Mbit)"
Ok, this part is obviously sane.
However:
> +menu "Ethernet (10/100 Mbit)"
> + depends on NET_ETHERNET
> +
>
> menu "Gigabit Ethernet (1000/10000 Mbit)"
> - depends on NETDEVICES
> + depends on NET_ETHERNET
is it really sane these days to split out gigabit from the "regular"
ethernets? gigabit ethernet is getting quite a bit more common than it
used to be, and a lot of the gigabit devices are just "standard ethernet"
as far as the user is concerned, and in fact they are often _used_ in just
regular 10/100Mbps setups.
In other words: it's quite understandable if somebody doesn't even
_realize_ that his chip supports gigabit speeds these days.
So wouldn't the right fix be to just remove the distinction between
"regular" and "gigabit" ethernet, and put them all in the same menu?
If the menu then grows really big, maybe we can split it according to some
_saner_ split. Not that I can see off-hand what that would be, but..
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-30 20:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-29 14:51 walt
2004-05-30 13:33 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-05-30 13:45 ` [patch] " Adrian Bunk
2004-05-30 14:37 ` Danny ter Haar
2004-05-30 16:41 ` Randy.Dunlap
2004-05-30 17:51 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-05-30 19:37 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-05-30 20:06 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2004-05-30 20:43 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-05-31 7:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-05-31 10:00 ` Paul Mackerras
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.58.0405301302020.1632@ppc970.osdl.org \
--to=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=bunk@fs.tum.de \
--cc=dth@dth.net \
--cc=dth@ncc1701.cistron.net \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=rddunlap@osdl.org \
--cc=wa1ter@myrealbox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®