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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 21:00:14 EST