From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:03:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:03:39 -0400 Received: from ns.caldera.de ([212.34.180.1]:34758 "EHLO ns.caldera.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:03:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:03:20 +0200 Message-Id: <200109192203.f8JM3Kh10663@ns.caldera.de> From: Christoph Hellwig To: greearbxu@candelatech.com (Ben Greear) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Replace the eepro100 driver with the e100 driver?? X-Newsgroups: caldera.lists.linux.kernel In-Reply-To: <3BA90EF2.527C9A50@candelatech.com> User-Agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.2 (i686)) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <3BA90EF2.527C9A50@candelatech.com> you wrote: > The e100 license appears to be compatible, and it has some nice features, like > interrupt-cooelescing that I don't think are supported in the eepro100.. > > I keep thinking that if everyone could get behind a single driver, > especially one with corporate support, we may have a more stable > result... > > Here's the license: Even if the license were compatible (it isn't) I wouldn't ever choose to replace eeproo100 with e100 - whilst eeproo100 is a rather nice behaving Linux driver, e100 is an utter piece of crap. Never seen a driver so full of interface violations, wrong types, races, bugs, etc.. Christoph -- Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.