[arc-discuss] can a new driver qualify for self-review?

[James Carlson]

Alan Hargreaves writes:
> I believe that a new network driver generally qualifies for self review. 
> The submission for such a case is pretty much the same as for a fast 
> track, with the exception that it gets marked as "closed approved 
> automatic( MM/DD/YYYY)".

Yep.  Other than the issue of whether it really does conform to all
the expectations for such a driver, the only other architectural issue
that might need to be addressed is whether the driver duplicates or
overlaps something that already exists.

We don't really want to have a profusion of drivers for identical or
substantially similar devices.  It tends to increase the difficulty of
maintaining the code.

In this case, it'd help to explain why a separate driver is preferable
to extending the existing dnet driver.  Or to discuss whether this new
driver could subsume and remove that old one.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network                    <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677