Stefan Seyfried <[email protected]> [20050929 10:54:01 +0200]: > > >> My thinking too, its a relatively new feature and when I have looked around > >> very few userland tools even tinker with ondemand so either we do it now or > >> not at all...or rather we do it later and listen to everyone complain :) > > so the early birds are doomed? ;-) > they don't call it *bleeding* edge for no reason ;) I'll promise not to flip it back again, deal? > I'll bite the bullet if this "flip the meaning" gets in, but i don't > like it. I'll have to check for the kernel version in my userspace code, > then which is generally a bad idea IMO. > I agree, its messy that this was not dealt with on day one before the code was even merged but the meaning is logically the other way round to what you would expect it to mean from reading the sysfs name. Joe Public is going to get confused on this one, rightly so too. Cheers Alex > -- > Stefan Seyfried \ "I didn't want to write for pay. I > QA / R&D Team Mobile Devices \ wanted to be paid for what I write." > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nürnberg \ -- Leonard Cohen -- ______________________________________ / A day without sunshine is like a day \ \ without Anita Bryant. / -------------------------------------- \ ^__^ \ (oo)\_______ (__)\ )\/\ ||----w | || ||
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- References:
- [2.6.14] Cpufreq_ondemand sysfs names change (was: Re: CPUFreq_ondemand: misnamed ignore_nice attribute)
- From: Blaisorblade <[email protected]>
- Re: [2.6.14] Cpufreq_ondemand sysfs names change
- From: Stefan Seyfried <[email protected]>
- [2.6.14] Cpufreq_ondemand sysfs names change (was: Re: CPUFreq_ondemand: misnamed ignore_nice attribute)
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/3 htlb-acct] Demand faulting for huge pages
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH]CPUID workaround for intel CPU - Re: [PROBLEM] mtrr's not set, 2.6.13
- Previous by thread: Re: [2.6.14] Cpufreq_ondemand sysfs names change
- Next by thread: Re: [2.6.14] Cpufreq_ondemand sysfs names change
- Index(es):
