Dennis wrote: > Actually, you have it backwards here, because having the stack on the > card (and allowing port to port routing without a bus transfer), seems > to be precisely what the card addresses. It seems likely that the card > is more suited for building switches and things than general network > device usage, however the usefulness of running something like that on a > linux platform is a bit suspect, particularly when all of the > value-added things you might want to do with a custom switch would be > out of reach. If the stack is really 100% "a switch/router on a card", it should never need to interface with the Linux network stack at all. All it would need is a device node for control and configuration, reading statistics and similar duties. > However, Jeff is correct in that targeting the linux community of > do-it-yourselfers is probably a bad idea. You'll be dealing with people > who think that everything is broken and that only they, as a collective > mind, can repair it. They'll want you to GPL your firmware, and then > once it becomes popular some taiwanese company will clone your card and > you'll be out of business. I never said nor implied anything of this sort. In fact I disagree strongly with these (your) statements and implications. Jeff - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
