Pursuing the fix upstream then submitting a backported kernel or intel driver patch will probably be faster. I think you'll find that script is a little too hacky for peoples tastes and i'd be surprised if it gets merged at this stage in the release cycle.
Ofc that is a hacky script because it is a workaround and not a fix. My focus was to make it usable with as many hints as possible.
For more then 5 years i deliver contributions to this project. Do you have the impression i would not follow up and remove the script when there is a fix upstream?
I can not pursue anything on that intel issue. It was days to prepare all the information and create clean infos for that issue. Now it sits there and nobody responsible has acted in any way at all. What would be the way to pursue that? Being pushy and asking when somebody is doing something? That is not very nice and i will not do that. If i could fix it i would have done it. Instead i try the next best thing and try to help users with the same problem.
In your opinion the user of LE should be denied the easier workaround of including this hacky script and instead waiting that somebody will fix it upstream so the it comes to LE. Until then the users are screwed and poking in the dark if they hit the same issue. Buying cables or do other desperate things. From what i saw by researching it i found hints that it is a years old problem. Now i am doing something and being punished for it. That is how i feel.
In context the number of users rocking up here with latest generation Intel hardware is small and in continuous slow in-decline for the last decade. So audience is not large, there is a workaround (albeit forum sourced) available, and 'Yes' adding hacky stuff to the core image matters and is something to be avoided; largely because once workarounds are merged history shows people end up being happy with the workaround and the root cause is never pursued. If you refuse the hack up-front there's a significantly higher probability of the real issue being resolved (tried and tested). Backporting patches merged/submitted upstream is a no-brainer.
So if it is just a bunch of users they can be ignored for the good of the code base? .oO(i am being sarcastic)
Again do you have the impression i will not follow up when Intel fixes that problem?
And yes there is be a easier way for the users: to include my hacky script until Intel fixed it.
The scope is unclear so i did not restrict when it will act, i already had some PCI id filtering in there, but i can only guess which PCI id are problematic.
Your way leads to user download the script and with a new image with the fix it will not be removed and still be there and i have no chance in updating that script, because it is not part of the image. I could not put in the parameters when it is fixed, because i do not know them. And that is better in your opinion?
chewitt What exactly do i need to do that it gets included now? So people with nice and expensive hardware can just use there hardware.