[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090108160304.GA30619@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:03:04 -0500
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] ACPICA: move common private headers under
kernel/acpi/acpica/
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 11:10:17PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i still tend to regard kernel/* as the core Linux kernel, as code that can
> be improved infinitely (only subject to the laws of physics), without
> having to worry about how the ACPI spec wants certain things done.
>
> The moment you bring in "this has to work on BSD, etc." arguments it will
> be a never ending excuse for crap. Standards tend to create the _worst_
> possible code, because every vendor compromizes a bit on another vendor's
> crap, just to be able to get in their own important crap. So the more
> vendors there are in a standards group, the crappier the end result is
> technically.
>
> Also, ACPI is an environment/bootstrap detail well placed under
> drivers/acpi/ - why should it move to kernel/acpi/ ? The fact that it's
> used widely is immaterial - by that argument we could move arch/x86/ to
> kernel/x86/, and we could move drivers/ata/ to kernel/ata/ as well. (they
> are probably even more widely deployed than ACPI)
I agree. acpi has no business under kernel/.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists