Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 10:26:04 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman) Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ipx on 802.3 Message-ID: <199512051726.KAA01996@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <9512051629.AA02695@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett A. Wollman" at Dec 5, 95 11:29:21 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Of the socket on which the ioctl call is being made. Probably have to > > propagate a couple of fields on te dispatch. > > Ummm, the /protocol/ (nb: not address) family of the socket is totally > irrelevant to all of the current ioctls /by design/; now you're > proposing to undo that cleanup? All I'm saying is if he wants to add 802.3, he shouldn't be blackmailed into cleaning up the link code misuse. 802.3 is *so* valuable that it would be worth undoing that cleanup and several others just to get it in. Once in, another cleanup could be done. The hard part on the 802.3 LLC is codifying the state table. I've seen companies buy code from Microsoft and hack COFF objects from MSVC 2.x into something usable by GCC to get an 802.3 before. It's like someone giving you a new horse right after you have shoed your old horse. The beneifits of the new horse outwiegh the costs of the shoes on the old one... it's unreasonable to expect him to shoe the thing because your old horse had shoes. In case Jordan didn't follow that because it wasn't a car analogy, the relevent car analogy involves being given a new white Ford Taurus right after you've painetd your old Dodge Dart red. 8-). 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512051726.KAA01996>