On 10/23/13 11:11 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Sure, however those drivers and vfs systems were not sustainable and
holding the kernel back.
On 23 October 2013 11:09, Alfred Perlstein <bri...@mu.org> wrote:
Eh, having taken a stab at porting the bwl blob already, I would strongly
oppose removing NDIS. If you do that I will just stop using my netbook
with a Broadcom part altogether as I wouldn't be able to use it to try to
test bwl changes. The NDIS thing is a bit hackish, but it is quite useful
for a lot of folks.
I have to agree. Deprecation != motivation.
I can pull out examples of this not holding true:
* all the giant locking in drivers
* all the giant locking in VFS
People did pop up and claim ownership of things they cared about. Some
stuff died, some stuff didn't. There was enough of a motivation by us to
kill giant off in these pathways so things could continue to evolve. We
didn't leave the GIANT crutch in forever.
What part of the NDISulator actually holds the system back? I'm saying
that it seems as if it was conjecture rather than a need. Is the
NDISulator giant locked?
Also why the interest in writing drivers so much? Being able to
leverage other platform drivers is pretty neat and saves us a ton of work.
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"