From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled ACPI_PROCFS removal Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:54:49 -0400 Message-ID: <46951969.4030109@tmr.com> References: <20070709145755.GD3492@stusta.de> <20070709174544.2a6b7067@the-village.bc.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Alan Cox , Adrian Bunk , Zhang Rui , lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Jul 9 2007 17:45, Alan Cox wrote: >>> This patch contains the scheduled removal of the ACPI procfs interface. >> What part of "we do not gratuitously break user space interfaces" is so >> hard for people to understand. > > Generally I am with you on that, but if everyone keeps on using /proc -- > and I do[*] -- we will never get rid of it. > Is there some reason why you should get rid of it? Is it causing a lot work to maintain? > > [*] Does someone have an alternative for /proc/acpi/battery/BAT1/{state,info}? > -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot