Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:52:26 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> To: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Cc: emulation@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] proposed 'lem' patch to improve behaviour under emulation Message-ID: <CA%2BhQ2%2BhUR=1pOtTCK6NzxjDtbMVLOCNTbOvyC64xmMN8YZuu3w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFOYbckd4G76Pm05pJKW_td-C6JpXtc2_8H%2BJc_FvSys1X62gw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20121227094649.GA48891@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <CAFOYbckd4G76Pm05pJKW_td-C6JpXtc2_8H%2BJc_FvSys1X62gw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> wrote: > LOL, it's ironic, my intention in creating lem was to isolate the old > pre-PCIE driver from active changes so as to assure it's stability... > but virtualization comes around to bit me in the butt :) > > I guess I'm agreeable in principle with what you're doing Luigi, but > can you do me a favor and hold off until I'm technically back from > vacation (after the new year) and let me review the code then? > > sure, no rush -- i just wanted to have it out for review as it has been ready for a few weeks now. Regarding lem vs em i actually wonder if it wouldn't be better to consolidate the two drivers given the amount of common code. While i understand the desire for stability, i actually wonder if there is much if any leftover hw which uses 'lem' ... outside virtualization! cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BhQ2%2BhUR=1pOtTCK6NzxjDtbMVLOCNTbOvyC64xmMN8YZuu3w>