From owner-freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 17 09:12:44 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF0416A41F; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:12:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from itchy.rabson.org (mailgate.nlsystems.com [80.177.232.242]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0280143D46; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:12:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from herring.rabson.org (herring [10.0.0.2]) by itchy.rabson.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9H9CL0v070670; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:21 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) From: Doug Rabson To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:18 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <2b22951e0510141758x1edef8jf7caf2514c336514@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200510171012.20801.dfr@nlsystems.com> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (itchy.rabson.org [80.177.232.242]); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:31 +0100 (BST) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on itchy.rabson.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.83/1139/Mon Oct 17 01:30:04 2005 on itchy.rabson.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org, Tai-hwa Liang Subject: Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC? X-BeenThere: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Firewire support in FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:12:44 -0000 The fwip implementation should be fully compatible with the RFC standard. I'm happy for fwip to replace fwe in GENERIC unless anyone else has an objection. On Saturday 15 October 2005 03:35, Katsushi Kobayashi wrote: > Hi, > > Although I don't know the detail of fwe technology, I understand the > technology is a proprietary one. It is better to provide a > compatibility with RFC standard firewire over IP, if some volunteer > are there. > > On 2005/10/15, at 9:58, Cai, Quanqing wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > When I was fixing bug kern/82727: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/82727, I found we > > use fwe(Ethernet over FireWire) in GENERIC kernel, not fwip(IP over > > FireWire). > > But we all know that IP over FireWire is more widely used on other > > OSes, and > > now this bug is fixed, do we need change fwe to fwip? > > > > I talked it with Tai-hwa Liang, he agrees with me. But he suggests > > me to > > post here for more advices, since there might be some > > considerations such > > like backward compatibility or code size that makes re@ made this > > decision. > > > > Please give you advice or opinion. > > > > Best > > Cai, Quanqing > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch- > > unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 17 11:01:52 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7B816A41F for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:01:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9ED43D49 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:01:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (peter@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9HB1qXC022314 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:01:52 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@freebsd.org) Received: (from peter@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j9HB1p2A022308 for freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:01:51 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@freebsd.org) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:01:51 GMT Message-Id: <200510171101.j9HB1p2A022308@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: peter set sender to owner-bugmaster@freebsd.org using -f From: FreeBSD bugmaster To: freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Current problem reports assigned to you X-BeenThere: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Firewire support in FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:01:52 -0000 Current FreeBSD problem reports Critical problems Serious problems S Submitted Tracker Resp. Description ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o [2004/11/22] kern/74238 firewire [firewire] fw_rcv: unknown response; fire o [2005/06/28] kern/82727 firewire [modules] kernel module if_fwip fails to 2 problems total. Non-critical problems S Submitted Tracker Resp. Description ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o [2004/12/12] kern/74977 firewire [modules] dcons.ko requires KDB support 1 problem total. From owner-freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 17 19:51:30 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF6016A41F; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:51:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (Odin.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7254643D49; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:51:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9HJpUMo010419; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:51:30 -0700 Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0/Submit) id j9HJpUWN010418; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:51:30 -0700 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:51:30 -0700 From: Brooks Davis To: "Cai, Quanqing" Message-ID: <20051017195130.GC15097@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <2b22951e0510141758x1edef8jf7caf2514c336514@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2b22951e0510141758x1edef8jf7caf2514c336514@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=8.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on odin.ac.hmc.edu Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Tai-hwa Liang , freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC? X-BeenThere: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Firewire support in FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:51:31 -0000 --69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 05:58:38PM -0700, Cai, Quanqing wrote: > Hi guys, >=20 > When I was fixing bug kern/82727: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3Dkern/82727, I found we use > fwe(Ethernet over FireWire) in GENERIC kernel, not fwip(IP over FireWire). > But we all know that IP over FireWire is more widely used on other OSes, = and > now this bug is fixed, do we need change fwe to fwip? >=20 > I talked it with Tai-hwa Liang, he agrees with me. But he suggests me to > post here for more advices, since there might be some considerations such > like backward compatibility or code size that makes re@ made this decisio= n. >=20 > Please give you advice or opinion. Are they incompatable? If no, just add fwip. If so, can that be fixed? -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDVADBXY6L6fI4GtQRAlHWAJ9M1sCnd5LVyPe+YG9561awzvqLmACgqGWB BkMcZ2xlzrY/KNJLRvLUr6w= =5qnA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD-- From owner-freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 18 12:21:27 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A260716A41F; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:21:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sakura.ninth-nine.com (sakura.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BABE43D46; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:21:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Received: from nadesico.ninth-nine.com (nadesico.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.122]) by sakura.ninth-nine.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/NinthNine) with ESMTP id j9ICLN6p055540; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:21:25 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:21:23 +0900 From: Norikatsu Shigemura To: Doug Rabson Message-Id: <20051018212123.8865775e.nork@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200510171012.20801.dfr@nlsystems.com> References: <2b22951e0510141758x1edef8jf7caf2514c336514@mail.gmail.com> <200510171012.20801.dfr@nlsystems.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.1.3 (GTK+ 2.6.10; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (sakura.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.121]); Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:21:25 +0900 (JST) Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, avatar@mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw, freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC? X-BeenThere: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Firewire support in FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:21:27 -0000 On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:18 +0100 Doug Rabson wrote: > The fwip implementation should be fully compatible with the RFC > standard. I'm happy for fwip to replace fwe in GENERIC unless anyone > else has an objection. I disagree. Because fwip and fwe can exist together. So I think that fwip should be added to GENERIC. > On Saturday 15 October 2005 03:35, Katsushi Kobayashi wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Although I don't know the detail of fwe technology, I understand the > > technology is a proprietary one. It is better to provide a > > compatibility with RFC standard firewire over IP, if some volunteer > > are there. > > > > On 2005/10/15, at 9:58, Cai, Quanqing wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > When I was fixing bug kern/82727: > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/82727, I found we > > > use fwe(Ethernet over FireWire) in GENERIC kernel, not fwip(IP over > > > FireWire). > > > But we all know that IP over FireWire is more widely used on other > > > OSes, and > > > now this bug is fixed, do we need change fwe to fwip? > > > > > > I talked it with Tai-hwa Liang, he agrees with me. But he suggests > > > me to > > > post here for more advices, since there might be some > > > considerations such > > > like backward compatibility or code size that makes re@ made this > > > decision. > > > > > > Please give you advice or opinion. > > > > > > Best > > > Cai, Quanqing > > > _______________________________________________ > > > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch- > > > unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-firewire > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-firewire-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 18 12:34:04 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D245B16A41F; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:34:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from mail.qubesoft.com (gate.qubesoft.com [217.169.36.34]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11CB743D45; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:34:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from [192.168.1.254] (dhcp254.qubesoft.com [192.168.1.254]) by mail.qubesoft.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9ICXnVZ063816; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:33:49 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) In-Reply-To: <20051018212123.8865775e.nork@FreeBSD.org> References: <2b22951e0510141758x1edef8jf7caf2514c336514@mail.gmail.com> <200510171012.20801.dfr@nlsystems.com> <20051018212123.8865775e.nork@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Doug Rabson Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:33:48 +0100 To: Norikatsu Shigemura X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on mail.qubesoft.com X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.86.2/1142/Tue Oct 18 08:21:37 2005 on mail.qubesoft.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, avatar@mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw, freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC? X-BeenThere: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Firewire support in FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:34:05 -0000 On 18 Oct 2005, at 13:21, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:18 +0100 > Doug Rabson wrote: > >> The fwip implementation should be fully compatible with the RFC >> standard. I'm happy for fwip to replace fwe in GENERIC unless anyone >> else has an objection. >> > > I disagree. Because fwip and fwe can exist together. > So I think that fwip should be added to GENERIC. Sure - both drivers are tiny and they don't step on each others toes. Longer term, I think we should try to phase out the fwe driver since it doesn't interoperate with any other systems (except Df, I guess).