* Re: [linux-pm] community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?]
[not found] ` <20060914101704.GA17820@elf.ucw.cz>
@ 2006-09-14 10:47 ` Eugeny S. Mints
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Eugeny S. Mints @ 2006-09-14 10:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: Matthew Locke, linux-pm, Preece Scott-PREECE, kernel list
Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> operating points it is possible to implement the "cpufreq frequency
>> selection logic" in user space and having such functionality in the kernel
>> just violates the main rule of having everything possible outside of the
>> kernel.
>
> You got the rules wrong. "Keep the code out of kernel" is important
> rule, but probably not the main one.
funny. not to mention that it was not the only argument I presented but please
tell us explicitly what's your reason to blow out kernel footprint by the code
which can be handled outside the kernel. I'd prefer to see technical reasons a
kind of latencies, etc but not the constant refrain "don't touch cpufreq
interface". Especially considering that proposed improvements _do_ _not_
_change_ the interface.
And just FYI kernel footprint was stated as one of main current issues at least
on the last OLS.
>
>> Paval, plz NOTE, that you don't have lkml in CC on this thread and I
>> personally feel that you've brought a really terrible confusion to everyone
>> with your lkml step. I'm wondering whether you are braking "no cross
>> postings" rule as well.....
>
> Cc-ing lkml is considered okay.
>
> Anyway, please do _proper_ submission,
I already did _proper_ submissions several time on IMO the _proper_ list.
>cc-ing lkml, explaining why it
> is needed so that me and lkml actually know what is going on.
will do
Eugeny
>Include
> those "elevator pitches".
> Pavel
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread