From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 8 May 2002 04:39:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 8 May 2002 04:39:23 -0400 Received: from [195.63.194.11] ([195.63.194.11]:63749 "EHLO mail.stock-world.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 8 May 2002 04:39:22 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD8D57B.4080702@evision-ventures.com> Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 09:36:27 +0200 From: Martin Dalecki User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; pl-PL; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020419 X-Accept-Language: en-us, pl MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Padraig Brady CC: Linus Torvalds , Anton Altaparmakov , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.14 IDE 56 In-Reply-To: <3CD800FE.4050004@antefacto.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Uz.ytkownik Padraig Brady napisa?: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> [ First off: any IDE-only thing that doesn't work for SCSI or other >> disks >> doesn't solve a generic problem, so the complaint that some generic >> tools might use it is totally invalid. ] >> >> On Tue, 7 May 2002, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: >> >>> Linux's power is exactly that it can be used on anything from a >>> wristwatch >>> to a huge server and that it is flexible about everything. You are >>> breaking >>> this flexibility for no apparent reason. (I don't accept "I can't >>> cope with >>> this so I remove it." as a reason, sorry). >> >> >> >> Run the 57 patch, and complain if something doesn't work. >> >> Linux's power is that we FIX stuff. That we make it the best system >> possible, and that we don't just whine and argue about things. >> >> >>> As the new IDE maintainer so far we have only seen you removing one >>> feature after the other in the name of cleanup, without adequate or even >>> any at all(!) replacements, >> >> >> >> Who cares? Have you found _anything_ that Martin removed that was at all >> worthwhile? I sure haven't. >> >> Guys, you have to realize that the IDE layer has eight YEARS of absolute >> crap in it. Seriously. It's _never_ been cleaned up before. It has stuff >> so distasteful that t's scary. >> >> Take it from me: it's a _lot_ easier to add cruft and crap on top of >> clean >> code. You can do it yourself if you want to. You don't need a maintainer >> to add barnacles. >> >> All the information that /proc/ide gave you is basically available in >> hdparm, and for your dear embedded system it apparently takes up less >> space by being in user space. So what is the problem? > > > Well my "dear" embedded system doesn't have libc :-( > So 35664 saved in kernel (less on disk), requires 25212 > extra for hdparm + more for static linked uclibc (hope > it works ;-)). As a side note if this happens hdparm would > be a requirement for busybox IMHO, anyway getting back on topic... > > All the info I've ever needed is /proc/ide/hdx/capacity > which I could get from /proc/partitions with more a bit > more effort, so I vote for removing /proc/ide. > > I think everyone realises Martin is doing great and much needed work > on IDE (btw I'll have those flash support patches soon Martin ;-)), > but I did think this change needed debate. In general I know it's a > hard decision what to export in proc, especially if there are > existing dependencies, a few already mentioned possibles in RH7.1: > > /sbin/mkinitrd > /sbin/fdisk > /sbin/sfdisk > /sbin/sndconfig > /usr/sbin/mouseconfig > /usr/sbin/kudzu > /usr/sbin/module_upgrade > /usr/sbin/updfstab > /usr/sbin/glidelink > /usr/sbin/sndconfig > /usr/lib/python1.5/site-packages/_kudzumodule.so > /usr/bin/X11/Xconfigurator > > For e.g. could the same arguments could be made for lspci only > interface to pci info rather than /proc/bus/pci? The following > references are made to /proc/bus/pci on my system: In esp. in sigth of the fact that we have a device tree filesystem, I rather think that /prco/bus/pci is obsolete indeed.