On Mon 2007-05-21 14:45:53, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:40:46PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Mon 2007-05-21 14:36:08, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:29:48PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Significantly more correct? It forces you to do all the thermal > > > > management in userspace! > > > > > > Why's that a problem? > > > > Duplicating all the kernel logic in userspace, badly? > > So don't do it badly. The advantage of doing so is that you can make it > work properly, which you can't by putting it in the kernel. You want stuff like critical shutdowns to work even if userspace is dead. I do not think you can control passive cooling adequately from userspace, and you can certainly not prevent kernel from slowing machine down too soon. Plus, this is actually nasty user-visible change, and a regression from 2.6.21. I am not sure why we are even debating this; user-kernel interface changed without warning. Patch should be simply reverted. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
