Subject: Re: Patch for timiting TCP MSS (i.e. for new PPPoE)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 12/04/2001 21:30:21
>> I believe that adding kludges to work around other people's
>> brokenness is almost invariably a Bad Thing, since it removes their
>> incentive to fix their brokennesses.
> Hmm, should we go through all of the ethernet drivers and remove all
> of the code to work around various "bugs" in the hardware? After all
> it is a work around for other broken behavior.
I've delayed responding this long in an attempt to sort out my position
on it. This is a fully valid response to my comment and deserves a
serious reply. However, I'm having trouble pinning down the relevant
difference between won't-frag and (say) SDEV_QUIRK_NOLUNS.
> We should write one standard driver and if someone has broken
> hardware that doesn't work without a "kludge" then too bad for them.
To an extent that's what we do, with the sbus and pci and such drivers;
if there were a standard for CPU<->NIC interfaces, we probably would do
it there. But on the other hand, things like LANCE_REVC_BUG and the
various quirk tables represent exactly the sort of kludgery that I
spoke out against.
I don't have a good answer. I wouldn't even be posting this now except
that in this case silence would too probably (and plausibly) be
interpreted as ignoring a disagreeable comment.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML firstname.lastname@example.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B