> Alex Aizman writes:
> However, the main question remains: will the
> HAL-based driver (because even after the script-produced "surgery" it'll
> continue to be HAL based) ever get accepted?
We truly appreciate the time spent on looking at the code and the feedback..
I guess Alex is asking the right question - before we start code changes, it
will be great to get a rough consensus on whether this HAL-based driver
(after suggested changes) will be acceptable to the community - or yet
another HAL driver in tree will be still "one too many"?
In particular - after this discussion, does David's statement below still
stand (not sure there was an unconditional rejection of the HAL model from
>David Miller writes:
>I totally reject this driver, HAL is unacceptable for in-tree drivers.
>We've been over this a thousand times.
If this stands, we are prepared to recall the submission and keep the
current "Linux and everything else" status-quo for 10GbE Xframe drivers.
It's not the best maintenance option (both for us and arguably, even for a
non-primary-author kernel hackers) but it's workable.