Re: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce

[Martin Steigerwald <ms@teamix.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1127 bytes --]

Am Dienstag, 26. Mai 2009 schrieb Oliver Neukum:
> Am Dienstag, 26. Mai 2009 00:58:53 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > No, I am afraid it is not. The average user has no clue. Even if that
> > > is not the problem, the user never knows for sure he has encountered
> > > the worst case.
> >
> > OK there, but surely it's better to have a sysfs attribute than a fixed
> > value?
>
> Why? The driver knows best. Tunables are generally the worst solution.

I agree, but what about the not so ideal real-world? What about closed source 
drivers? Who is going to educate closed source driver writers to inform the 
kernel about their memory requirements early enough? And how long will this 
take?

I think at least as an interim measure it makes sense to have a sysfs value. 
Or discourage closed-source drivers even more.

I prefer open-source gfx drivers and don't need extra pages allowance, but 
that might not hold true for everyone.

-- 
Martin Steigerwald - team(ix) GmbH - http://www.teamix.de
gpg: 19E3 8D42 896F D004 08AC A0CA 1E10 C593 0399 AE90

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]