From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <84bb8c674daa0269b77211554b83dc3e@plan9.bell-labs.com> From: jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] porting from vs. porting to Plan 9 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:03:51 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 743955d2-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Mon Oct 20 10:05:41 EDT 2003, rminnich@lanl.gov wrote: > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Richard Miller wrote: > > > The largest Plan 9 ethernet driver has 2117 lines of code in total. > > not a completely fair comparison. A lot of those linux drivers have cases > for all the buggy various implementations. See the Tulip driver as a > worst-case (but it's not; see the tg3 driver ...) > > ron Which Linux tulip driver? The one that only handles the 21041 or the one that says it has had all 21041 support stripped out but hasn't (linux-2.5.69)? Of course I can't really disagree with your main point, that it's not a fair comparison and that the drivers purport to handle many buggy chips. Indeed, many of them do. I'm reminded of when I wrote the Realtek 8139 driver and I looked at a number of the *nix drivers. They all had reams of code dealing with chip bugs, but the bugs described in one driver were not the same as those in another.