Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:10:47 +0100 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> To: "David Christensen" <davidch@broadcom.com> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Rafael Ganascim <rganascim@gmail.com> Subject: Re: bge driver and MSI Message-ID: <200912082310.nB8NAlDQ038723@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: Your message "Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:22:20 PST." <5D267A3F22FD854F8F48B3D2B52381933A31693938@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> As a more general question, what would be the right medium to > document such device errata as it relates to a driver? Is the > man page the best location or would it be better to add a > table near the top of the driver file which summarizes the > bugs and the workarounds? Is there a general consensus? Lots of Unix users dont have use or understand sources, so IMO A) If person reporting is willing to code a fix, use send-pr to send .c patch. B) Else use send-pr with a diff to add a BUGS section to eg bge.5 man file, & cc programmers if known, who can delete BUGS lines when fixed. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey: BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Mail plain text not quoted-printable, HTML or Base64: http://asciiribbon.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200912082310.nB8NAlDQ038723>