Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC?
From: Doug Rabson (dfr_at_nlsystems.com)
Date: 10/18/05
- Previous message: Norikatsu Shigemura: "Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC?"
- In reply to: Norikatsu Shigemura: "Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC?"
- Next in thread: Brooks Davis: "Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:33:48 +0100 To: Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org>
On 18 Oct 2005, at 13:21, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:18 +0100
> Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> wrote:
>
>> The fwip implementation should be fully compatible with the RFC
>> standard. I'm happy for fwip to replace fwe in GENERIC unless anyone
>> else has an objection.
>>
>
> I disagree. Because fwip and fwe can exist together.
> So I think that fwip should be added to GENERIC.
Sure - both drivers are tiny and they don't step on each others toes.
Longer term, I think we should try to phase out the fwe driver since
it doesn't interoperate with any other systems (except Df, I guess).
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Norikatsu Shigemura: "Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC?"
- In reply to: Norikatsu Shigemura: "Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC?"
- Next in thread: Brooks Davis: "Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
