Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:51:30 -0700 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: "Cai, Quanqing" <caiquanqing@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Tai-hwa Liang <avatar@mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw>, freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC? Message-ID: <20051017195130.GC15097@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <2b22951e0510141758x1edef8jf7caf2514c336514@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b22951e0510141758x1edef8jf7caf2514c336514@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 05:58:38PM -0700, Cai, Quanqing wrote: > Hi guys, >=20 > When I was fixing bug kern/82727: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3Dkern/82727, I found we use > fwe(Ethernet over FireWire) in GENERIC kernel, not fwip(IP over FireWire). > But we all know that IP over FireWire is more widely used on other OSes, = and > now this bug is fixed, do we need change fwe to fwip? >=20 > I talked it with Tai-hwa Liang, he agrees with me. But he suggests me to > post here for more advices, since there might be some considerations such > like backward compatibility or code size that makes re@ made this decisio= n. >=20 > Please give you advice or opinion. Are they incompatable? If no, just add fwip. If so, can that be fixed? -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDVADBXY6L6fI4GtQRAlHWAJ9M1sCnd5LVyPe+YG9561awzvqLmACgqGWB BkMcZ2xlzrY/KNJLRvLUr6w= =5qnA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051017195130.GC15097>