Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Mar 1999 23:43:03 -0600 (CST) | From | mev0003@unt ... | Subject | Re: NetGear FA310TX/tulip.c |
| |
On 24 Mar, david parsons spewed forth: :: In article <linux.kernel.m10Q1Ey-0007U1C@the-village.bc.nu>, :: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: :: >> was just wondering what keeps us from including that tulip.c in the :: >> kernel as a driver for NetGear cards. Maybe as netgear.c? I was (just :: . :: . :: . :: :: >The current tulip driver handles all these various pseudo tulip abominations. :: :: Out of curiosity, why do you refer to the Tulip clones as :: `abominations'? I'm running a few of them in high-performance :: network servers, and, with the netgear tulip.c they seem to be (on :: the basis of performance and looking at error logs) about as nice as :: I would want any ethernet card to be. :: :: ____
I didn't know that the tulip.c was 'adjusted' already. I always just copy NetGear's tulip.c over the one that comes with the kernel, and compile away.
Personally, I'm with David. NetGear can hardly be classified as a 'pseudo tulip abomination'. NetGear makes some very high-quality hardware, and I like them. Just because it doesn't say "DEC" on the chip doesn't mean it's bad! ;) Which is kinda why I'd asked about a separate driver. Heck, *my* NetGears don't even have any DEC chips on them!
All in fun, -- Matthew Vanecek Studies in Business Computers at the University of North Texas http://www.unt.edu/bcis Visit my Website at http://people.unt.edu/~mev0003 ***************************************************************** For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting in the way of something...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |