Re: 921Kbps on Linux: is it possible ?!?!

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
Mon, 19 Oct 1998 15:09:24 -0700 (PDT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: Snippet to freeze 2.1.125"
Previous message: Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH: "Re: Cyrix Detection -- NO SMP, please ?????"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: 921Kbps on Linux: is it possible ?!?!"

> > Note that if we are planning to do the Right Thing[TM] for 2.3, we
> > might as well use the remaining Bxxxx bit patterns to things we know
> > we're going to need before then. Perhaps your FIR things are included
> > in that category.
>
> I need every multiple of 64kbits up to 2Mbits in the bit fields, as well
> as 56000 (not 57600) if Im going to report and do V120 rate adaptions
> on Linux.
>
> The only new B we need is BOTHER, and without BOTHER we will get bother
>

Yes, but I believe we just said it wasn't an option for 2.2? I agree
BOTHER is the Right Thing[TM], and I'd like to see it happen.

-hpa

-
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/

Next message: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: Snippet to freeze 2.1.125"
Previous message: Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH: "Re: Cyrix Detection -- NO SMP, please ?????"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: 921Kbps on Linux: is it possible ?!?!"