netdev - Re: Splitting e1000 (Was: Re: e1000: backport ich9 support from 7.5.5 ?)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <469276EB.4090502@garzik.org>
Date:	Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:56:59 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Andrew Grover <andy.grover@...il.com>
CC:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jason Lunz <lunz@...lexsecurity.com>,
	Mark McLoughlin <markmc@...hat.com>,
	e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Subject: Re: Splitting e1000 (Was: Re: e1000: backport ich9 support from 7.5.5
 ?)

Andrew Grover wrote:
> On 7/8/07, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
>> * e1000 gets feedback
>> * Intel disappears for months
>> * Intel reappears with e1000 rewrite
> 
> * you ask them for another complete (simpler) rewrite
> 
>> * Intel fights tooth and nail when the driver is not accepted verboten
> 
> I don't think it must be as-is (i.e. replacing e1000 for all HW) but
> don't throw away all the work they've done in architecting the driver
> to cleanly handle multiple chip generations.
> 
> How about:
> 
> 1) Considering e1000new's current design, but for ICH9 only
> 2) test test test
> 3) Sometime in the future, considering incrementally moving previous
> PCIe generations' support from e1000 to e1000new (like I initially
> wanted, since that at least means there would be some technical reason
> for where the split occurs :-)

That plan would be fine...  as long as the e1000new driver internals 
were restructured as I've been describing.

If one arrives at a driver containing an internal API that is flexible 
enough to implement support for almost -any- NIC, then that's a sign 
that it needs to be organized in a different fashion.

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html