[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: kernel 2.4.21]

To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: kernel 2.4.21]
From: Felix Radensky <felix@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:30:49 +0300
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, Cedric Gavage <cedric.gavage@xxxxxxxxxxx>, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: Allot Communications Ltd.
References: <1058634345.22000.2.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030719191723.0821227f.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3F1E53F7.5000803@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20030723023528.76b0f69c.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3F1E58EE.5010109@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20030723024648.2e4b6a62.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3F1E7435.4060308@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20030727163422.28e44736.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3F24D31F.5050904@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20030728073240.03ff1c2e.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030728150737.GB1399@xxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
Then maybe it makes sense to enable e100 by default and not eepro100 ?

Jeff Garzik wrote:

My Official Story(tm) is currently

* use e100
* unless you really really want to use eepro100

eepro100 in the kernel tree is essentially unmaintained.  One of the
big reasons I merged e100 is that it has an active maintainer with
full access to docs.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>