From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Mattox Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] fastroute dead code... Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:29:05 -0400 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: References: <20040730060348.GA22854@havoc.gtf.org> <20040730193515.GA11365@havoc.gtf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davem@redhat.com, hadi@cyberus.ca, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Jeff Garzik In-Reply-To: <20040730193515.GA11365@havoc.gtf.org> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org The code that uses (used?) fastroute is not in mainline. AFAIK there were two ethernet drivers that you could load that used it, one tulip based and the other 8390 based. Here's one of several archives of the ancient driver code: http://www.linuxgrill.com/anonymous/fire/alexey/fastroute/ They do not look like they have been maintained, in many years. It dates from early 2.2 kernel days. Apparently in it's day, a Linux box with fastroute could keep up with a Cisco router, but I've not been able to find the relevant benchmark numbers via google as of yet, and I've stopped looking. So, yes, I don't dispute that it's dead code as seen in mainline kernel source, and should probably be removed now. If it was still important, we would have seen fastroute GigE drivers by now, IMHO. On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:35:15 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: [snip] > Well my main point is that the code _doesn't do anything_. > > It is dead code, as-is, in the kernel. It would require patches to > actually work at all. > > It is impossible that fastrouting is being actively used, without patches. > > Jeff Some might consider dropping in a new network driver module a patch, others wouldn't... Anyway, as I said before, IMHO I agree its dead code worthy of removal unless someone comes up with a GigE driver that actually uses it. -- Tim Mattox - tmattox@gmail.com - http://homepage.mac.com/tmattox/