On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 11:11:16PM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Here is a patch I have locally that would be useful for Bill Paul,
> I think. I know, we could use "flag0" for this, but it seems to
> me that this will be an increasingly common option in hadware.
Should this be implemented as a shared option like this? I ask because
NetBSD has added the following types and only has one shared option
#define IFM_FLOW 0x00400000 /* enable hardware flow control */
#define IFM_FLAG0 0x01000000 /* Driver defined flag */
#define IFM_FLAG1 0x02000000 /* Driver defined flag */
#define IFM_FLAG2 0x04000000 /* Driver defined flag */
#define IFM_LOOP 0x08000000 /* Put hardware in loopback */
Personaly I don't think I would have wasted 3/8th of the shared options
on the abomination known as flags...
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4