Re: NetGear FA310TX/tulip.c

david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
24 Mar 1999 21:16:54 -0800


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.

____
david parsons \bi/ The SMC Etherpower 100s I used to use were a lot more
\/ problematic than the netgear clones.

-
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/