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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
