Bogus EEPROM checksum and now?

Stefan Bader stefan.bader at
Tue Jan 26 08:37:46 UTC 2010

Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Stefan Bader
> <stefan.bader at> 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[1]. 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.
>   Luis

Thanks, I'll add an ACK from you as well.


More information about the kernel-team mailing list