Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:47:34 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PCI-Express support Message-ID: <61725.1091393254@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:29:37 MDT." <410D52B1.2010807@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <410D52B1.2010807@samsco.org>, Scott Long writes: >>>Adding this for 5.3 is feasible, I think, and doesn't add a whole lot >>>of risk. >> >> >> OK, who are you and what have you done to Scott Long ? >> >> Scott would never even think about suggesting something like this two >> weeks before we lock down the tree for a -stable branching. > >To answer you and Warner, this is functionality that is optional and has >little risk to the existing infrastructure. John has done a great job >with abstracting the low-level interrupt drivers, and this would just be >another one of those. The support would be marked as *experimental*, >but with the API in place it would give us more freedom to make it >happen. Intel is pushing really hard to get adoption of this stuff in >the small/medium size server area, and 5.x is going to suffer if it's >not there. I *really* want us to get 5-stable branched and moving. If it is as optional as you say now, it can be added downstream once it has been baked out in -current. Please, Let us concentrate on getting 5-stable branched and made sensible. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?61725.1091393254>