Thanks for your sage advice Jim. I agree wholeheartedly. (And I did
suggest that to jmcp that PSARC'ing this if you knew you weren't going
to get past CTeam was not necessarily a great idea. Maybe that's my error.)
Btw, the issue is not just with names of HBAs, but how they name and
address the target nodes that will be used by SD. Care must be taken
that the *full* path doesn't change.
-- Garrett
James Carlson wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore writes:
>
>> The sad fact here is, barring a timely resolution from LSI, there is no
>> *long term* right answer. Almost any approach we take is going to cause
>> headaches. (And if you thought ipge -> e1000g was bad.... renaming hba
>> drivers is potentially going to be far far worse, IMO. It's technically
>>
>
> I doubt it, because there are _many_ more things that know about IP
> interface names.
>
> But, still, I don't think the rename is necessary, because there's no
> obvious overlap -- no point at which both drivers would be (or would
> need to be) present on the system.
>
> The problem with 'ipge' is that it was integrating into the system
> when e1000g was already present, long established, and handled that
> same chip set. That's not the case here. I think a reasonable
> proposal would be to integrate the open source driver now and
> _require_ that the closed source driver (if it ever in fact
> materializes; it seems there's some doubt there) is integrated with
> the same name in the future, removing and replacing this one.
>
> As for the "don't even bother to file a PSARC case" advice ... well, I
> don't know what to say. Unless that was some sort of a threat to
> filibuster the discussion, I don't see how that was good advice.
>
> Obviously, none of that really relates to governance, so though it's
> my opinion, it's not an OGB issue. :-/
>
>
_______________________________________________
driver-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss
