Bogus EEPROM checksum and now?
Luis R. Rodriguez
lrodriguez at atheros.com
Mon Jan 25 22:47:56 UTC 2010
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Stefan Bader
<stefan.bader at canonical.com> wrote:
> Stefan Bader wrote:
>> Hi Luis,
>> ok this was somewhat to be expected when adding the patch to check for the
>> EEPROM checksum to stable. The question is, is the a workable way to get that
>> fixed on the adapter or would it not have been better to have at least an option
>> to allow users to override it with the message that they cannot submit any
>> bugreports that get listened to?
> Note: I overlooked that this specific case was already fixed by a later patch
> that did not get into 2.6.31.y. Still generically it would be interesting what
> would be the approach if there is someone approaching with a invalid checksum.
> Are the EEPROMs to your knowledge simply be upgradeable by vendors (if they
> care) or would you think an override acceptable?
I replied to these e-mails but from my atheros address and those
didn't get accepted. Can someone ACK them? I'll go sign up with that
address now for future e-mails.
More information about the kernel-team