Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:51:40 +0200 From: Maxime Henrion <mux@FreeBSD.org> To: Joel Dahl <joel@FreeBSD.org> Cc: alc@FreeBSD.org, doc-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: www/en/projects/busdma index.sgml Message-ID: <20060821115140.GD66496@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <1156160988.670.8.camel@localhost> References: <200608211124.k7LBOC1e076436@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060821113456.GC66496@elvis.mu.org> <1156160988.670.8.camel@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joel Dahl wrote: > On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 13:34 +0200, Maxime Henrion wrote: > > Joel Dahl wrote: > > > joel 2006-08-21 11:24:11 UTC > > > > > > FreeBSD doc repository > > > > > > Modified files: > > > en/projects/busdma index.sgml > > > Log: > > > Add bce, bfe, ixgb, mxgb, nfe, stge and vge. Mark everything as > > > unknown for now. > > > > I took a look at the ixgb(4) driver some time ago and fixed some > > brokenness that I could spot WRT busdma. As far as I can (could) > > tell, ixgb(4) should be correctly busdma-ified now, but unfortunately > > I couldn't ever test this. These NICs are very rare, and the few > > people who are using those that I could find were using them on > > x86. > > Ok. I'm no expert, but it looks like ixgb is locked and has INTR_MPSAFE > enabled (alc did some work on this, see rev 1.7 of ixgb.c). Should I > mark busdma, INTR_MPSAFE and SMPng locked as done? Probably not, only busdma should be OK and as I said, it's not even sure because there have been no tests yet. I think the appropriate thing to do is to mark the busdma this driver as "Needs testing" for busdma, and not done for all the rest. Cheers, Maxime
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060821115140.GD66496>