From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 28 02:52:34 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55E2BEE; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 02:52:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rizzo.unipi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F1A38FC08; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 02:52:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b47so5130704eek.31 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:52:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=D+B8t/G9yrv3pGP9+FI5Fgv2qkKNx7/iW1c3bO3HcHc=; b=wYN0huLqREN1FrMGcw04cg26Ecl8UMSm5Uhj4txlEdyogpF/TOUalbQghx9dRIrYxZ bzYSEn3F96aTRCX3vAi+Pk2tw5WJ9zgD0HUIxaWMmH0N0zKcRcGQsXUx3Xn6Y7qcxQHM GoTa1A9nenx+p3wys/ntbzUx20ixKZJ0zVPsCmBoI6PwP0OtqwBI5+Se/oDEp1L3MKGg uTruzriYG3LiGYdba/EjogjVkRlk2JbV7zLBOtKj75396epVw99IRTFJYy+G7CtdQUXu okQghuqji8nHVJLE4tzcFvs6ncgZ5HYNIZbw69Gc8obdzh2B+EN+Yu0oyWTU1ZDNiQtX cp1Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.209.193 with SMTP id s41mr82796817eeo.9.1356663146654; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:52:26 -0800 (PST) Sender: rizzo.unipi@gmail.com Received: by 10.14.0.2 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:52:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20121227094649.GA48891@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:52:26 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: br4Js-XI8P07j8_3uUuCIMRJeyA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] proposed 'lem' patch to improve behaviour under emulation From: Luigi Rizzo To: Jack Vogel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: emulation@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 02:52:34 -0000 On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Jack Vogel wrote: > LOL, it's ironic, my intention in creating lem was to isolate the old > pre-PCIE driver from active changes so as to assure it's stability... > but virtualization comes around to bit me in the butt :) > > I guess I'm agreeable in principle with what you're doing Luigi, but > can you do me a favor and hold off until I'm technically back from > vacation (after the new year) and let me review the code then? > > sure, no rush -- i just wanted to have it out for review as it has been ready for a few weeks now. Regarding lem vs em i actually wonder if it wouldn't be better to consolidate the two drivers given the amount of common code. While i understand the desire for stability, i actually wonder if there is much if any leftover hw which uses 'lem' ... outside virtualization! cheers luigi