From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Nov 9 06:34:05 1996 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA01425 for stable-outgoing; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 06:34:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from tahoma.cwu.edu (skynyrd@tahoma.cwu.edu [198.104.65.220]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA01420 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 06:34:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by tahoma.cwu.edu; id AA01987; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 06:33:57 -0800 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 06:33:57 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Timmons To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FDDI DRIVER: The curtain is going down on 2.1-stable in 5 days! In-Reply-To: <17056.847524712@time.cdrom.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Oops... this will teach me to to read before I leap! As David G. pointed out the changes are more than just drop-in replacements; I should have been more careful to complete the research before I spoke up. I think you're right; it is too late for 2.1.6 and probably 2.2. I'm shuffling hardware at the moment but will hopefully have the P5/166 defpa machine upgraded to a P6/200 in a couple of weeks - I'll try the new driver in 3.0-current and make a more credible report/integration request at that time. With respect to 2.1.6, how about this small comprimise: remove the two offending printf()'s in fddi_input() to keep the message buffer from overflowing with debug output when an fddi ring has something other than IP on it (kern/1859). There seemed to be some consensus for doing this when I brought it up in -hackers a little while ago. -Chris On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > Considering the relatively small amount of work to integrate and the > > highly reliable source of the code, do you think it could be committed > > prior to 2.1.6? > > Well, my first impulse is to say "why wait this late?! We can't even > test it now! :-(" But I don't know how many people are even using FDDI > under 2.1.5. What do the folks here who actually have a vested > interest in this issue think? On general principles, this is simply > too late. An exception might be possible if I really get the feeling > that it's not going to come back to haunt me, like some 11th hour > changes in 2.1.5 did. :-( > > Jordan >