From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 1 21:25:20 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 D899F16A4CE for ; Sun, 1 Aug 2004 21:25:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8094243D55 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 2004 21:25:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.0.201] ([192.168.0.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i71LWdeB031727; Sun, 1 Aug 2004 15:32:39 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <410D5F45.1060902@samsco.org> Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 15:23:17 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040801 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Poul-Henning Kamp References: <61725.1091393254@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <61725.1091393254@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org 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 21:25:21 -0000 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > 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. > Agreed, and I'm looking for things besides stability that are going to bite us in the near future. 6.0 likely won't happen for 12-months after 5.3 at an absolute minimum, and I don't want PCI-E support to turn into something like Cardbus is with 4.x vs 5.x. Please trust me that I'll abort this if it turns too ugly. I'm just trying to solicit technical advice right now so that if it does happen, it happens right. Scott