netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Prism54-devel] Re: Problems with a PCI SMC2802W

To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, Netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Adam K Kirchhoff <adamk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, prism54-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx, Feyd <feyd@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Prism54-devel] Re: Problems with a PCI SMC2802W
From: Francois Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:33:47 +0100
In-reply-to: <20050316162448.GR17854@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <422F118D.8070704@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050309160744.GN4017@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050309202718.4f94b871@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050310021724.GD17854@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42302133.2060103@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050310103608.GB1416@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050310163007.GK17854@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050316162448.GR17854@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :
[...]
> If no comment is given on how we should deal with
> pci_dma_sync_single/pci_dma_sync_single_for_cpu for 2.4 I'm just going
> to put in a nasty ifdef there. Comemnts?

My out of tree 2.4.x driver for the 8169 exhibits a few differences
with the 2.6.x driver for these kind of things. Over several months,
it happened once that a 2.6.x patch hit this part of the code. Let's
say an extra 5 minutes to merge in 2.4.x and no side effects as I had
to actually look at the code (of course orthogonal patches helped).

Imho it is not a heavy maintenance/taste issue.

--
Ueimor

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