Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:16:39 -0700
From:      Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
Cc:        "gnn@freebsd.org" <gnn@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Stable List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: RFC: Evolution of the em driver
Message-ID:  <20071031081638.GA13564@eos.sc1.parodius.com>
In-Reply-To: <4727F13F.1030607@samsco.org>
References:  <2a41acea0710291045m6f1d2acw78c26a455ea3894d@mail.gmail.com> <m2myu0q1f0.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <2a41acea0710301001k60442b26uae186209ac484780@mail.gmail.com> <4727F13F.1030607@samsco.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 FreeBSD.  My vote is to nip the madness in the bud
> on if_em and have two (or more drivers) that support their hardware
> families well instead of one driver that supports multiple families
> marginally.

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(4) vs. nfe(4).  :-)

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwick                                    jdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking                           http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator                      Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.                  PGP: 4BD6C0CB |




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071031081638.GA13564>