Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:33:48 +0100 From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, avatar@mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw, freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC? Message-ID: <F1E6339E-A169-4FE1-BA26-9647A5DD8499@nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <20051018212123.8865775e.nork@FreeBSD.org> References: <2b22951e0510141758x1edef8jf7caf2514c336514@mail.gmail.com> <B9629BCB-48E9-405C-A837-04AC249F7E99@koganei.wide.ad.jp> <200510171012.20801.dfr@nlsystems.com> <20051018212123.8865775e.nork@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 Oct 2005, at 13:21, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:18 +0100 > Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> wrote: > >> The fwip implementation should be fully compatible with the RFC >> standard. I'm happy for fwip to replace fwe in GENERIC unless anyone >> else has an objection. >> > > I disagree. Because fwip and fwe can exist together. > So I think that fwip should be added to GENERIC. Sure - both drivers are tiny and they don't step on each others toes. Longer term, I think we should try to phase out the fwe driver since it doesn't interoperate with any other systems (except Df, I guess).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F1E6339E-A169-4FE1-BA26-9647A5DD8499>