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=20 networking code to be that simple. I will stick with 5.x for now. The ath=20 board is in the server providing hostap service. It would have been nice to= =20 have proper 54Mbps support instead of the current 11Mbps, but I can't risk= =20 all the other services this box runs breaking. Ah well... > > I would suspect (read I don't know for sure and it's S=F8ren'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=20 support for the VIA SATA is rock-solid. The reason I wanted to know was tha= t=20 I found this board to be solid and stable and it would be nice to be able t= o=20 recommend an AMD64 board with 100% support. Even the ACPI is flawless on th= is=20 board. Its one let-down is the ITE device which doesn't even work as a norm= al=20 ATA controller. Yes, OK, I should be running -CURRENT with an AMD64 anyway, I know ;-) Thanks for the information. =2D-=20 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>