Peter Memishian wrote: > > This is what I have so far. Have I missed anything? > > Are any updates to the documentation necessary for the revised vanity > naming kernel code?
It depends on how much of the documentation we want to update with this fast-track. There are certainly many implementation details contained in the design document that are not exactly reflective of the updated code. The code currently in dls_mgmt.c (which I think is what you're referring to) would fall into that category, and was discussed in section 6.2.2 of the design document. > > An additional question from me is, does the removal of the fast-path also > > necessitate the removal of MAC_CAPAB_MDT? I was under the impression > > that we could still make use of MAC_CAPAB_MDT without a fast-path, yet it > > was ripped out of clearview-uv along with the fast-path. > > I'm unclear how MAC_CAPAB_MDT would work without a fastpath, unless we > taught the GLDv3 framework about MDT in general (which given software LSO > seems the wrong direction). I tend to agree, but during our last meeting with Crossbow, I seem to remember Cathy saying that she had MDT working in the UV code before the fast-path even existed. It's not a big deal, I'm just wondering if removing the fast-path was also pulled MAC_CAPAB_MDT out of the gate, or if it was something else. > I do recall a separate discussion that the > new fastpath should be able to use MDT, but I don't think it needs > MAC_CAPAB_LDT to do so. Okay. -Seb
