From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dean Prichard <dpx@acl.lanl.gov>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] u9fs
In-Reply-To: <20020320071024.C956A19A68@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <20020320010427.Q47462-100000@fbsd.acl.lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 01:10:56 -0700
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6a854e8a-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

We ported etherga620.c to the fileserver kernel a while back,
if there is interest it's at:

http://www.acl.lanl.gov/plan9/fs-acenic/

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Geoff Collyer wrote:

> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:10:18 -0800
> From: Geoff Collyer <geoff@collyer.net>
> Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
> Subject: Re: [9fans] u9fs
>
> > I agree but support for drivers is a concern.
>
> I've just succeeded in porting a gigabit ethernet driver from the cpu
> kernel to the fs kernel using a bit of scaffolding and a very few
> changes to the original driver.  I believe that this can be extended
> to all the other ethernet drivers and maybe some non-ethernet drivers
> and I intend to take a whack at it.  (Thus my recent interest in
> ether8139.c.)  I also believe that similar scaffolding can ease
> porting of ethernet drivers into 9load, which you really need to make
> a given model of ethernet card useful.
>