Re: RFC: Evolution of the em driver

2007-10-31 Thread Scott Long
Jack Vogel wrote: On 10/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:45:17 -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: I have an important decision to make and I thought rather than just make it and spring it on you I'd present the issues and see what opinions were. Our newer

Re: RFC: Evolution of the em driver

2007-10-31 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 09:06:39PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: There are too many examples to name in every OS of drivers that have tried in vain to support diverging hardware evolutionary paths. if_dc and if_bge are great (or horrible, depending on your perspective) examples of this in FreeBSD.

Re: RFC: Evolution of the em driver

2007-10-31 Thread Peter Jeremy
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:16:39AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: For what it's worth, I agree with Scott. I'd rather see a new and separate driver (presumably igb(4)) than a hacked up em(4) driver trying to handle tons of IC revisions. A good example of the insanity the latter causes is nve(4)

Re: RFC: Evolution of the em driver

2007-10-31 Thread Jack Vogel
On 10/31/07, Peter Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:16:39AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: For what it's worth, I agree with Scott. I'd rather see a new and separate driver (presumably igb(4)) than a hacked up em(4) driver trying to handle tons of IC revisions. A

Re: RFC: Evolution of the em driver

2007-10-30 Thread Kip Macy
Jack, you should know by now that we're not Linux. All we care about is that you not break the code that we rely on. I'm still slightly embarrassed when I explain to people that I build if_em as a module because em0 doesn't come up sometimes due to a race condition on initialization, so I need to

Re: RFC: Evolution of the em driver

2007-10-30 Thread gnn
At Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:45:17 -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: I have an important decision to make and I thought rather than just make it and spring it on you I'd present the issues and see what opinions were. Our newer hardware uses new features that, more and more, require parallel code paths in

Re: RFC: Evolution of the em driver

2007-10-30 Thread Jack Vogel
On 10/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:45:17 -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: I have an important decision to make and I thought rather than just make it and spring it on you I'd present the issues and see what opinions were. Our newer hardware uses new

RFC: Evolution of the em driver

2007-10-29 Thread Jack Vogel
I have an important decision to make and I thought rather than just make it and spring it on you I'd present the issues and see what opinions were. Our newer hardware uses new features that, more and more, require parallel code paths in the driver. For instance, the 82575 (Zoar) uses what are