Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:16:39 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: "gnn@freebsd.org" <gnn@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Stable List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Evolution of the em driver Message-ID: <20071031081638.GA13564@eos.sc1.parodius.com> In-Reply-To: <4727F13F.1030607@samsco.org> References: <2a41acea0710291045m6f1d2acw78c26a455ea3894d@mail.gmail.com> <m2myu0q1f0.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <2a41acea0710301001k60442b26uae186209ac484780@mail.gmail.com> <4727F13F.1030607@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 09:06:39PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > 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. For what it's worth, I agree with Scott. I'd rather see a new and separate driver (presumably igb(4)) than a "hacked up" em(4) driver trying to handle tons of IC revisions. A good example of the insanity the latter causes is nve(4) vs. nfe(4). :-) -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071031081638.GA13564>