From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 23 18:00:00 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9930586 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:00:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qc0-x22b.google.com (mail-qc0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A08F2184 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:00:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id i7so676780qcq.2 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:59:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=u2DmYpx1+wycb6nsv9Wx3QdReSBYMsNoHn5FQtK6V18=; b=MhaOq3sEiI4WjnU6DwWHpv8cRqZ32pxid9Yo1Mme7WEPosTmxi4YRK1ZGch04TdiVQ N4TXZFrVlXUdXOjITPpQpW8xJoTSeTa3KjEfmvn2CM7gtLGlRuFB50hj2F1M0c52vEgt 9uFZoKUoXR/gJyPmb1ekedB8hSSFkwhXt89lhUsJ0HfnkSwl2kCP3G4PafHFSIrYF4Bz O1IAKxw+v5PFODMCzF9nQNFAOnDaYZPLA9gqSiENJkazi7xbsoDBFm8cF7bwt47nnQYi fuasNwck+hjwlgCpENi/S65HdULQp9AnX4t93kLFVO2Xuzl75bh8Cb+g2DI+DoAHzGKF H+MA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.36.201 with SMTP id u9mr5685705qad.76.1382551199677; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:59:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.207.66 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:59:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <52680A09.3000403@allanjude.com> References: <5265878B.1050809@yandex.ru> <201310212146.r9LLkqZ1044966@fire.js.berklix.net> <52680A09.3000403@allanjude.com> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:59:59 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: e0ebaxHIpDfPHR6tKULB39p-OQY Message-ID: Subject: Re: [rfc] removing the NDISulator From: Adrian Chadd To: Allan Jude Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: freebsd-current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:00:00 -0000 On 23 October 2013 10:40, Allan Jude wrote: > I think the point Adrian is trying to make, is that the NDISulator needs > a maintainer, and rather than someone working on that hack, that person > should spend their time on native drivers. > It's partially that. It's also that a lot of the stuff the ndisulator provides (ie, all the other devices we don't have drivers or stable drivers for) removes the actual requirement that we _do_ get drivers written and new stack features implemented. It lowers the barrier so far that quite honestly, I'm worried that it won't attract new developers over to hack on wifi/ethernet drivers or on the wifi stack itself. (Except for Kevin Lo and if_rt. Thanks! And Cedric for iwn changes, thanks again!) There were plenty of people who were running the ndisulator to get 11n support for atheros/intel chips until I and Bernhard came along. The actual size of 11n work required in net80211 wasn't that great. It required Bernhard sit down with the standard and a packet sniffer, ask the right questions and have a few "wtf!" moments. We have things like 11ac that are here right now and noone has stepped up to hack on it. I've had a few people ask about whether we can run the latest broadcom/atheros windows drivers under the ndisulator so they can get 11ac support. This is another short-term crutch that gets a handful of users online but it doesn't improve the overall FreeBSD wireless support or enhance the features that we can support across multiple vendors. In essence, I think the ndisulator is preventing us from biting the hard problems now so we can actually grow the FreeBSD wireless ecosystem. As someone earlier in the thread pointed out, it doesn't seem that many > drivers are NDISulatable anymore. > > The proposal is to remove it from 11 (2 years away). > > I am all for keeping it, if it works, but if it is unmaintained, what > state will it be in 2 years from now? > My proposal is to deprecate it now so people realise that we either need the existing drivers fixed up or their existing/upcoming hardware plainly won't be supported. Now, this may end us up with a bunch of hardware that stops working. I'm treating this mostly like the GIANT device rototill - we either care enough as a community to do what's necessary to fix up / implement drivers, or we just cut them loose. But I'd rather see us do that over extending it to include the latest NDIS wireless interfaces required in Windows 7 and later. I believe by doing that, we're seriously hampering our ability to grow the wireless side of things over the next five or so years (ie the current specification lifecycle.) That worries me. Thanks, -adrian