Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 13:14:30 +0000 From: Matt Dawson <matt@mattsnetwork.co.uk> To: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MFCs? Message-ID: <200501011314.30584.matt@mattsnetwork.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20050101125734.GF761@zaphod.nitro.dk> References: <200501011217.13171.matt@mattsnetwork.co.uk> <20050101125734.GF761@zaphod.nitro.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 01 Jan 2005 12:57, Simon L. Nielsen wrote: > Sam has already said that the wlan parts will not be MFC'ed since they > break the API/ABI. Hmm, that's what I thought. It seemed to touch too many other bits of the networking code to be that simple. I will stick with 5.x for now. The ath board is in the server providing hostap service. It would have been nice to have proper 54Mbps support instead of the current 11Mbps, but I can't risk all the other services this box runs breaking. Ah well... > > I would suspect (read I don't know for sure and it's Søren's call) > that the ata changes are going to MFC'ed, but since there are some > quirks in the ata code in CURRENT at the moment, which are being > worked on, I wouldn't hold my breath for the MFC. I won't. I don't use the ITE RAID on the Gigabyte board anyway, and the support for the VIA SATA is rock-solid. The reason I wanted to know was that I found this board to be solid and stable and it would be nice to be able to recommend an AMD64 board with 100% support. Even the ACPI is flawless on this board. Its one let-down is the ITE device which doesn't even work as a normal ATA controller. Yes, OK, I should be running -CURRENT with an AMD64 anyway, I know ;-) Thanks for the information. -- Matt Dawson. matt@mattsnetwork.co.uk MD2657-RIPE OpenNIC M_D9
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200501011314.30584.matt>