Garrett D'Amore writes: > The sad fact here is, barring a timely resolution from LSI, there is no > *long term* right answer. Almost any approach we take is going to cause > headaches. (And if you thought ipge -> e1000g was bad.... renaming hba > drivers is potentially going to be far far worse, IMO. It's technically
I doubt it, because there are _many_ more things that know about IP interface names. But, still, I don't think the rename is necessary, because there's no obvious overlap -- no point at which both drivers would be (or would need to be) present on the system. The problem with 'ipge' is that it was integrating into the system when e1000g was already present, long established, and handled that same chip set. That's not the case here. I think a reasonable proposal would be to integrate the open source driver now and _require_ that the closed source driver (if it ever in fact materializes; it seems there's some doubt there) is integrated with the same name in the future, removing and replacing this one. As for the "don't even bother to file a PSARC case" advice ... well, I don't know what to say. Unless that was some sort of a threat to filibuster the discussion, I don't see how that was good advice. Obviously, none of that really relates to governance, so though it's my opinion, it's not an OGB issue. :-/ -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
