From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:42:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:41:52 -0500 Received: from Cantor.suse.de ([194.112.123.193]:13585 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:41:32 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:41:29 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Bill Wendling , kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davies@maniac.ultranet.com Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated as of 2.4.0-test10) Message-ID: <20001104004129.C5173@gruyere.muc.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20001103202911.A2979@gruyere.muc.suse.de> <200011031937.WAA10753@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <20001103160108.D16644@ganymede.isdn.uiuc.edu> <3A033C82.114016A0@mandrakesoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A033C82.114016A0@mandrakesoft.com>; from jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 05:30:26PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 05:30:26PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: > > > > Also sprach kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru: > > } > de4x5 is probably also buggy in regard to this. > > } > > } de4x5 is hopeless. I added nice comment in softnet to it. > > } Unfortunately it was lost. 8) > > } > > } Andi, neither you nor me nor Alan nor anyone are able to audit > > } all this unnevessarily overcomplicated code. It was buggy, is buggy > > } and will be buggy. It is inavoidable, as soon as you have hundreds > > } of drivers. > > } > > If they are buggy and unsupported, why aren't they being expunged from > > the main source tree and placed into a ``contrib'' directory or something > > for people who may want those drivers? > > de4x5 is stable. Its hopeless to add stuff to it, or try to any fix of > the (IMHO small) issues, but its fine as is. For maintenance issues, > its PCI support will be eliminated in 2.5.x because it is a duplicate of > support in the tulip driver. de4x5 is stable, but tends to perform badly under load, mostly because it doesn't use rx_copybreak and overflows standard socket buffers with its always MTU sized skbuffs. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/