From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 1 20:47:36 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 C5BEE16A4CE for ; Sun, 1 Aug 2004 20:47:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BFDA43D1D for ; Sun, 1 Aug 2004 20:47:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i71KlY6E061726; Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:47:34 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Scott Long From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:29:37 MDT." <410D52B1.2010807@samsco.org> Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:47:34 +0200 Message-ID: <61725.1091393254@critter.freebsd.dk> Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PCI-Express support 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: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 20:47:36 -0000 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.