From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5][RFC] Physical PCI slot objects Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:12:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20071114151232.GW17785@parisc-linux.org> References: <20071113000853.GA13341@ldl.fc.hp.com> <20071113170129.GA20185@kroah.com> <20071114141751.GS17785@parisc-linux.org> <20071114143533.GF17145@one.firstfloor.org> <20071114150025.GU17785@parisc-linux.org> <20071114150801.GH17145@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:55175 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755618AbXKNPMe (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:12:34 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071114150801.GH17145@one.firstfloor.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: Greg KH , Alex Chiang , gregkh@suse.de, kristen.c.accardi@intel.com, lenb@kernel.org, richard.jones2@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, pcihpd-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 04:08:01PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > Whoever is proposing a feature has the burden to justify that > its usefulness is larger than the overhead/cost it adds. > > Doesn't seem to be the case with this one so far. Huh? There are half a dozen people who think it does, and half a dozen people who think it doesn't. Fine, you're on the side which sees no use for it. > And in general ignoring overhead in new features is a pretty sad > approach. Big bloat does come in small steps with each new feature. A very generic argument which could be used to shoot down any new feature. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."