Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751237AbWHHFNP (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 01:13:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751240AbWHHFNP (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 01:13:15 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]:37935 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751237AbWHHFNO (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 01:13:14 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=R2vJhVHqPdr1g5ut49touDe/hFsecY1IL9bt9kU4YlNkiFH9qzmAFzlHtH4/KM6i3Fyif+B/9aoy4XfIfOFNXRfAPb20kw0yfQDjb0oSlYRD2OWTpwsmf6KMXDaYHxETzHbTkjoBh/40Z4oeVMx8/ZqwUO0f8wFDYuKV6Q9F4b4= Message-ID: <292693080608072213n2be75176g46199e92d669f5de@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 10:43:13 +0530 From: "Daniel Rodrick" To: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Univeral Protocol Driver (using UNDI) in Linux Cc: "Linux Newbie" , kernelnewbies , linux-net@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <44D76F26.9@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <292693080608070339p6b42feacw9d8f27a147cf1771@mail.gmail.com> <44D7579D.1040303@zytor.com> <292693080608070911g57ae1215qd994e03b9dd87b66@mail.gmail.com> <44D76F26.9@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1114 Lines: 31 > > > > I'm sure having a single driver for all the NICs is a feature cool > > enough to die for. Yes, it might have drawbacks like just pointed out > > by Peter, but surely a "single driver for all NIC" feature could prove > > to be great in some systems. > > > > Assuming it works, which is questionable in my opinion. > > > But since it does not already exist in the kernel, there must be some > > technical feasibility isse. Any ideas on this? > > No, that's not the reason. The Intel code was ugly, and the limitations > made other people not want to spend any time hacking on it. > Hi ... so there seem to be no technical feasibily issues, just reliabliy / ugly design issues? So one can still go ahead and write a Universal Protocol Driver that can work with all (PXE compatible) NICs? Are there any issues related to real mode / protected mode? Thanks, Dan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/