Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:03:04 -0500 From: "Josh Carroll" <josh.carroll@gmail.com> To: pyunyh@gmail.com Cc: Steve Franks <bahamasfranks@gmail.com>, current-list freebsd <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Call for testers: Atheros AR8121(L1E)/AR8113/AR8114(L2E) ethernet Message-ID: <8cb6106e0812112003s38233af6v8d324cf70eafc8fc@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20081212035625.GN46707@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <20081203090658.GJ9639@cdnetworks.co.kr> <20081206023016.GF22093@cdnetworks.co.kr> <539c60b90812081127s4ffb509fnea9d44d4298da666@mail.gmail.com> <8cb6106e0812081252j2b0c8e78g4dcecf8d3770c269@mail.gmail.com> <8cb6106e0812101745l54b23a08k7fbeddeb605f88ea@mail.gmail.com> <20081212020539.GI46707@cdnetworks.co.kr> <8cb6106e0812111923l15f1f715g6f20f5925e1d471a@mail.gmail.com> <20081212034042.GL46707@cdnetworks.co.kr> <8cb6106e0812111951k18f4663ck2121b550dfe57322@mail.gmail.com> <20081212035625.GN46707@cdnetworks.co.kr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Yes, but msk(4) had hacks in e100phy(4) to enable flow-controls. > I don't want to add these hacks to all other drivers in tree. Thanks for the explanation! I certainly understand not wanting to put non-standard hacks into the code. I imagine the number of people affected by this is minimal (like I said, the overall throughput/performance was fine). I'll just consider getting a PCI-E em(4) in the future if the PCI bus begins to become a bottleneck for me, which is unlikely as I have no raid in any of the connected machines with gigE. Regards, Josh
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8cb6106e0812112003s38233af6v8d324cf70eafc8fc>