Re: [rfc] removing the NDISulator

And the link momentum is strong now. There's driver source.

Adrian
On Oct 23, 2013 2:41 PM, "John Baldwin" <jhb_at_freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:11:29 pm Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > On 23 October 2013 11:09, Alfred Perlstein <bright_at_mu.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Eh, having taken a stab at porting the bwl blob already, I would
> strongly
> > >> oppose removing NDIS.  If you do that I will just stop using my
> netbook
> > >> with a Broadcom part altogether as I wouldn't be able to use it to
> try to
> > >> test bwl changes.  The NDIS thing is a bit hackish, but it is quite
> useful
> > >> for a lot of folks.
> > >>
> > >>  I have to agree.  Deprecation != motivation.
> >
> >
> > I can pull out examples of this not holding true:
> >
> > * all the giant locking in drivers
> > * all the giant locking in VFS
> >
> > People did pop up and claim ownership of things they cared about. Some
> > stuff died, some stuff didn't. There was enough of a motivation by us to
> > kill giant off in these pathways so things could continue to evolve. We
> > didn't leave the GIANT crutch in forever.
>
> Giant isn't dead yet. :)  (And I've done a lot of the de-Gianting FWIW.)
>
> I don't consider ndis in the same camp.  Often times there are vendors
> where
> datasheets, etc. are not obtainable, but a foo.sys + foo.inf is.
>
> --
> John Baldwin
>