From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62310 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751769AbaEGHKh (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2014 03:10:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 09:10:23 +0200 From: Karel Zak To: Sami Kerola Cc: util-linux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] cytune modernization Message-ID: <20140507071023.GT5962@x2.net.home> References: <1399218596-21321-1-git-send-email-kerolasa@iki.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1399218596-21321-1-git-send-email-kerolasa@iki.fi> Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 04:49:41PM +0100, Sami Kerola wrote: > Couple days ago Benno Schulenberg mentioned email with subject 'cytune: > misnamed long options' usage() being a bit misleading that I concurred > with note that the cytune could probably be improved various ways. This > patch set proposes the improvements I had in mind. > > Please notice that I do not have hardware to test the cytune command, so > testing after the changes did not happen. All I can say I tried to be > careful not to break program logic, and hopefully that will work. Frankly, I'm a little bit nervous from all the invasive cytune changes, because we have no way how to test it. It's fine to change warning/error messages, usage() or so, but the another changes without tests seem risky. The question is if we have to maintain HW specific util, particularly when the HW seem rarely available (ebay only?). Maybe the best would be to drop cytune.c from u-l and suggest to possible users to use old u-l versions or maintain cytune.c outside u-l. Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com