On 15 Sep 2014, at 7:15 pm, Henning Brauer <[email protected]> wrote:
> * Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas <[email protected]> [2014-09-14 23:18]: >> Chris Cappuccio <[email protected]> writes: >>> Stuart Henderson [[email protected]] wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't think the driver manuals can sensibly go into enough detail >>>> in many cases, with some NICs there are differences between revisions, >>>> some drivers cover a huge range of adapters, etc. >>> >>> It might be nice to get maximum MTUs for various chip revisions stated >>> in their respective man pages. >> >> Yes but this needs work - even more work if an audit of all drivers >> "gets" done to make all manpages accurate. I'll shut up about this >> since it looks like a big task in my eyes. > > A too big task when you add the maintainance. > > We've tried this before in other occasions, we cannot document > hardware quirks/features reasonably in our documentation for > widespread, pretty generic hardware - we just have no chance to keep > it in sync with reality. > > jca/chris, if you're so much after it, I propose you start a webpage > somewhere collecting and maintaining that information. If it is still > accurate in a couple of years we can have this duscussion again :) it might be reasonable to document which drivers (not chips) have support for jumbos. for the drivers for chips with stupid variations between silicon revisions, we should refer the user to the vendor datasheets as brad suggests, and ifconfig if0 hwfeatures output as the final authoritative source of information. dlg
