From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] u9fs Message-ID: <20020320092307.H5727@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20020320071024.C956A19A68@mail.cse.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20020320071024.C956A19A68@mail.cse.psu.edu>; from Geoff Collyer on Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:10:18PM -0800 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:23:08 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6a7c997a-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:10:18PM -0800, Geoff Collyer wrote: > > > I agree but support for drivers is a concern. > > [ ... ] > 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. I agree, mucking about with the PCNet driver led me to similar conclusions. I assume that the underlying Plan 9 design greatly simplifies device driver implementation. Pity about VGA, admittedly, but I'm sure we're not far from a simplified VGA driver design. It's worth waiting until the game developers hit an unsurmountable performance wall and rediscover the joys of standardisation. As for 9load, it may grate to the Bell Labs purist, but sharing drivers between /sys/src/9 and /sys/src/boot would be a definite win, even if the odd #ifdef has to be brought into use :-) ++L