From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 23 20:18:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0107C16A4CE; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:18:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.vicor-nb.com (bigwoop.vicor-nb.com [208.206.78.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B07343D3F; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:18:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from elischer.org (julian.vicor-nb.com [208.206.78.97]) by mail.vicor-nb.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1207A403; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <41532FA0.6030405@elischer.org> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:18:40 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030516 X-Accept-Language: en, hu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sam References: <41508FEB.6030203@elischer.org><20040923191423.GE61631@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: re@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AoE for 4.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:18:42 -0000 I think that if you have a working driver we can assign you a number. I do have some questions however.. this is AoE.. is it not possible at all to combne it with either the CAM framework (such as the atapicam stuff) or the existing ATA stuff.. Don't take this the wrong way.. it's just a question.. CAM is being used to talk to drives over firewire, usb, ata, scsi, fibrechannel. it would seem that to unify this would be something that we should look at.. Of course CAM itslef is showing its age in soem places and it could do with some work itself.. Sam wrote: >>> I'm hoping to have a 5.x driver ready in the next month or two, >>> probably patched against 5.3-stable when it's ready. >> >> >> Drivers go into the system in the order >> -current >> -stable >> >> This is basically the order we ALWAYS force, to avoid people doing >> development on older branches and a continual loss of functionality. >> >> This means that you (or somebody else) will need to port it to -current >> before it can go into 5.3-stable. > > > The flip side of this argument is that I can't reasonably > ask customers to pull up -current sources to use a storage > product. They've got to be able to rely on it and I've got > to be able to manage the service calls. > > Eventually I'll have patches against a -stable that's close enough > to a -current that the patch will apply to both. I'm hoping 5.3 > will be this way. > > This isn't news to me; I got the same thing from the linux folks. > > Sam > _______________________________________________ > 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"