Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 07:59:43 -0800 Received: from dow.sw.com.sg ([203.120.9.222]:59666 "EHLO dow.sw.com.sg") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 07:59:29 -0800 Received: from kuznet by dow.sw.com.sg with local (Exim 3.13 #7) id 12Zbxw-0005bX-00; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:02:08 +0800 Subject: Re: 3c59x.c To: andrewm@uow.edu.au (Andrew Morton) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:02:08 +0800 (SGT) Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru (Alexey Kuznetosv), becker@scyld.COM (Donald Becker), netdev@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: <38DF7503.D498C734@uow.edu.au> from "Andrew Morton" at Mar 27, 2000 02:49:39 PM From: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru (Alexey Kuznetosv) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-netdev@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;netdev-outgoing Hello! > Guys, we all know there's a lot of history. Could we please just > concentrate on the future? There are drivers to be got going, no? Right. Alas, 2.4 is rather present than future tense, so that let's concentrate on the present yet. 8) > basically the same structure. If he could use his experience and > knowledge to prepare a reference driver for the 2.4 framework, others > could follow that. 8) If you know the history, you know that it is exactly which I prayed to make. I am sorry but this proposal was refused by all the sides. it is question of the past though. 8) > The other is to actually understand what is going on. AFAIK there is no > description of the softnet<->driver interface which allows driver > writers to gain this understanding. A simple functional API description > doesn't cut it - we need to know what the dynamic relationships are, > what serialisation guarantees the higher layer makes, etc. Jamal's document covered all the _necessary_ topics with pretty deep explanations. If you have something to add to the list of "necessary" topics, please, add. > Yes, I know of davem's email and Jamal's doc. They're not enough. The > lack of this architectural description will adversely affect Linux's > overall quality. Is doing so, in fact. Ask some concrete questions better. All such documents are result of dialogue, rather than broadcast from a godlike being. No questions --- no answers. BTW why did you have no questions before softnet? 8) The situation was much worse that time and its explanations really required volumes of controversial texts. 8) Alexey