On 10/31/07, Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:16:39AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >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 revisio
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:16:39AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>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
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 FreeB
Jack Vogel wrote:
On 10/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 hardwa
On 10/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 hardw
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 pat
I prefer (2) - non-intrusive on em, and the new one doesn't have to deal
with legacy or backward compatibility with em.
Any commonality with ixgbe?
Later
Brian.
On 10/29/07, Jack Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have an important decision to make and I thought rather than just make
> it
Jack, you should know by now that we're not Linux. All we care about
is that you not break the code that we rely on. I'm still slightly
embarrassed when I explain to people that I build if_em as a module
because em0 doesn't come up sometimes due to a race condition on
initialization, so I need to b
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 call
