Brooks Davis wrote:
> 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 left:
> #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...
Flags can be device private, which can be a good thing.
I only use the patch because I know of no Gigabit ethernet
cards that are useful which can not perform checksum
Maybe it should just always be on... I thought there was a
problem with performance, doing that with the Tigon II.
In any case, it seems to be a tradeoff that you might want
to make intentionally, if your main processor was 1.5GHz...
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message