From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 28 06:07:24 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290BAD5E; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:07:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vc0-f179.google.com (mail-vc0-f179.google.com [209.85.220.179]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA078FC0A; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:07:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id p1so10323660vcq.24 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:07:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=g31VcEatWqTYKhK99I7wVHcVP/kUJdqRn6JgWRe/hhw=; b=qHNNml4E1KaIl1u893+6r3cqpPyDLeCLwlX2wu8Ej39T6s/WHVtlK2C4gLKivgE5Vw 7DHYNCZE37IJ6pA6VNTjUzuHF87ZYhlSk9Ww52gAehgGPKQin53txCMMiD2sJMofd+M6 HiEshX1T+U21kVIWxl1ToU2ISqUFcIDE0yANgOr6BcDodgr8WGVP8b5elm+CQyphndrb RNDKElmb4xc3fsQKTQHWa62q+CN3jCB8DSK4mlF/equ0sIrc2ay9679zBWhTChAANpyt ATOLldeV6upVFY0AC7Z3MLV1TArYX1ALf2tlHXF0bFJMbbnrLm98DuA1v9yooWZ/kIio CFFw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.221.11.205 with SMTP id pf13mr49164827vcb.70.1356674837352; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:07:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.50.6 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:07:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20121227094649.GA48891@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:07:17 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] proposed 'lem' patch to improve behaviour under emulation From: Jack Vogel To: Luigi Rizzo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: emulation@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:07:24 -0000 I don't know, in some ways it might be more interesting to make something just for a virtualized device, however reality is that I have way too many higher priority items to worry about after the new year gets underway than that, even so, we can see... Jack On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Jack Vogel 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 > >