Peter Memishian wrote:
> But, by moving such large amounts of code to the GLDv3, you actually
> greatly simplify the drivers thereby making support much, much easier
> for them. Ultimately this reduces long term headaches, unless you're
> going to propose that the existing drivers are flawless and will never
> need to be touched again.
Of course they're not flawless -- and this is a good argument, but to me
it's more an argument for getting GLDv3 out the door than it is for
rewriting the past.
I think this point is one sticking issue. That is, I think you are
arguing that these two approaches are mutually exclusive. I think that
is a bad assumption.
In particular, there are probably a lot more folks who can help with a
port of a driver to GLDv3 than there are that can contribute
meaningfully to making GLDv3 open.
-- Garrett
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
