Re: [PATCH 10/14/] Doc. sources: expose laptop-mode

[Bart Samwel <bart@samwel.tk>]

Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
> 
> Documentation/laptop-mode.txt:
> Expose example and tool source files in the Documentation/ directory in
> their own files instead of being buried (almost hidden) in readme/txt files.
> 
> This will make them more visible/usable to users who may need
> to use them, to developers who may need to test with them, and
> to janitors who would update them if they were more visible.
> 
> Also, if any of these possibly should not be in the kernel tree at
> all, it will be clearer that they are here and we can discuss if
> they should be removed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
> ---
>  Documentation/dslm.c          |  166 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  Documentation/laptop-mode.txt |  170 ------------------------------------------

Arguably, dslm.c should be removed completely. It's something for which 
everyone who knows how to compile a file named "dslm.c" can write a 
usable replacement, using a couple of lines of shell scripting. If we 
should include anything, it should be those lines of shell scripting, in 
the docs, at most.

Point for discussion: should the laptop_mode script really still be in 
laptop-mode.txt? AFAIK most distros use laptop-mode-tools or use their 
own scripts to control this. Furthermore, the existing script is mostly 
unmaintained, and it is full of bugs that were fixed long ago in 
laptop-mode-tools (which was originally a fork of the script). I think 
it would be better to replace it with a bit of documentation on which 
things a laptop mode control script *should* tweak, *may want to* tweak, 
etc., accompanied by an explanation why these tweaks are needed. I.e, an 
"annotated spec", as one would expect to find in documentation. I'll 
submit a patch to this effect when I find some time.

Cheers,
Bart