Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:06:39 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Cc: "gnn@freebsd.org" <gnn@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Stable List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Evolution of the em driver Message-ID: <4727F13F.1030607@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <2a41acea0710301001k60442b26uae186209ac484780@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a41acea0710291045m6f1d2acw78c26a455ea3894d@mail.gmail.com> <m2myu0q1f0.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <2a41acea0710301001k60442b26uae186209ac484780@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Jack Vogel wrote: > On 10/30/07, gnn@freebsd.org <gnn@freebsd.org> wrote: >> At Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:45:17 -0700, >> Jack Vogel wrote: >>> I have an important decision to make and I thought rather than just make >>> it and spring it on you I'd present the issues and see what opinions were. >>> >>> Our newer hardware uses new features that, more and more, require >>> parallel code paths in the driver. For instance, the 82575 (Zoar) uses >>> what are called 'advanced descriptors', this means different TX path. >>> The 7.0 em driver has this support in it, it just uses a function pointer >>> to handle it. >>> >>> When I add in multiqueue/RSS support it will add even more code >>> that functions this way. >>> >>> What the Linux team did was to split the newer code into a standalone >>> driver, they call it 'igb'. I had originally resisted doing this, but with >>> the development I have been working on the past month I am starting >>> to wonder if it might not be best to follow them. >>> >>> I see 3 possibilities and I'd like feedback, which would you prefer if >>> you have a preference and why. >>> >>> First, keep the driver as is and just live with multiple code paths >>> and features, possibly #ifdef'ed as they appear. >>> >>> Second, split the driver as Linux has into em and igb. The added >>> question then is how to split it, Linux made the line the use of >>> advanced descriptors, so Zoar and after, but I could also see a >>> case for having everything PCI-E/MSI capable being in the new >>> driver. >>> >>> Third, sort of a half-way approach, split up code but not the >>> driver, in other words offer different source files that can be >>> compiled into the driver, so you could have the one big jumbo >>> driver with all in there, or one that will only work with a subset >>> of adapters. This one would probably be the most work, because >>> its a new approach. >> As you're the main maintainer it's your choice. Whatever is easiest >> for you and gives us the most readable code. > > Thanks, I know its my choice, I was just looking for opinions about > the options I had to chose from :) > > I think I've had enough feedback to decide, I think the seperate > driver is the direction. I need to give some thought to where to > make the split. > > Thanks for everyone's feedback. > > Jack There are too many examples to name in every OS of drivers that have tried in vain to support diverging hardware evolutionary paths. if_dc and if_bge are great (or horrible, depending on your perspective) examples of this in FreeBSD. My vote is to nip the madness in the bud on if_em and have two (or more drivers) that support their hardware families well instead of one driver that supports multiple families marginally. Scotthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4727F13F.1030607>