On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Roger Luethi wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:42:44 -0500, Donald Becker wrote:
> > Note that the second check ignores 100baseT4, despite it have priority
> > over 10baseT-*. That was intentional to work around, "a specific issue"
> > with a transceiver.
>
> That "specific issue" might be worth documenting. Information on such
> quirks is hardest to come by.
There are some quirks I'll refer to as bugs, and some as "issues".
When I get a documented, reliable work-around for a problem that doesn't
impact operation or performance, I consider that chip to be non-buggy.
I try very hard to avoid NDAs, but I'm willing to sign one when it's
clear on both sides what the limits of the NDA are.
Now, if I have to track down the problems myself I can't be certain if
I've found the full extent or correct fix for what is clearly a _bug_.
[[ I don't know why I bother. The people that now control what goes into
the kernel would rather put in random patches from other people than
accept a correct fix from me. ]]
--
Donald Becker becker@xxxxxxxxx
Scyld Computing Corporation http://www.scyld.com
410 Severn Ave. Suite 210 Scyld Beowulf cluster system
Annapolis MD 21403 410-990-9993
|
