E1000g driver broken on solaris 10 u6; how to report this bug correctly?

Question

Question also posted in OpenSolaris forums:
[http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=329326]
While upgrading a T2000 server to solaris 10 update 6 I found that my jumbo
interfaces report errors on reboot.
One frequent cause was that the update replaced /kernel/drv/e1000g.conf file
(I changed the MaxFrameSize line to enable jumbo frames). This in-persistency
of the file is annoying but well-known (bonus question: can I make changes to
this file persistent?)
However, the system still refused to set MTU = 9000 on the interfaces, and by
default it assigns an MTU=8978 (instead of 16384 or 10244 as expected from
other systems; we only need 9000 though). Googling showed that a few people
have also discussed this regression.
Copying in the driver file (/kernel/drv/sparcv9/e1000g) from Solaris 10 u4
worked (network goes up, needed MTU is assigned). This doesn't seem like a
suported and "enterprise" solution, so I want this bug to be known and fixed by
Sun in the main tree.
I haven't found any numbered bug report on this matter. How can I submit a bug
for this regression in Solaris 10 (I couldn't reproduce the problem in OpenSolaris)?
Can someone with access and skill please post the bug for us? :)
e1000g driver module versions involved:
sol10u4 (working): Intel PRO/1000 Ethernet 5.1.11
sol10u6 (bad MTU limit): Intel PRO/1000 Ethernet 5.2.8
//Jim Klimov

Answer 1

Hello again, Mr. Cohen, and thank you for your corrections to my style.
No offense taken, since it makes sense when you put it this way,
and the point is taken - I'll try to be that specific next time. Thanks.
Returning to the problem at hand, however with the abundance of
Sun's tools to submit bugs (including those you pointed out above),
I believed I might not know of some one more bugtracker.
I also thought that "support cases" did differ from "bugs" which arise,
taking my example, when Sun (or Intel?) took a working e1000g driver
and "fixed" so it's no longer working - and then Sun releases it into
the commercial version of the OS this way through all the presumed
Q&A. And wants commercial users to pay for fixing it back. That's
the part of the logic I found flawed somehow ;)
So yes, you can say that I'm "cheap" to pay for Sun fixing something
they broke themselves.
I originally posted this report on OpenSolaris forum in hope someone
would point out my misconfiguration or confirm that the problem exists
for others.
That forum (and/or the bugtracker search for keyword e1000g) also have
a number of posts complaining about the vast number of ways this one
e1000g driver was broken lately in 90s-100s OpenSolaris builds. Some
posters even went as far as to suggest that someone reviews all works
of the engineers and managers who are responsible for these recent
flawed putpacks, or even provide some disciplinary action.
I wouldn't go that far, but I was still saddened to find some other bug
leak into the kinda-stable Solaris.
//Jim on a mobile