From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 18 12:34:04 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@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-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with 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).