On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 03:07 +0800, Satyam Sharma wrote: > On 7/12/07, Zhang, Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Well, the ACPI sysfs conversion is not finished yet > > [...] > > I'm not sure if the button sysfs I/F is already finished. > > We'd better make a double check. :) > > Ok, this sounds reasonable. > > > and some user space tools still use the ACPI procfs. > > But this does *not*, IMHO. It quite defeats the whole concept of > feature-removal-schedule.txt. I think that file exists precisely > because we cannot gratuitously break userspace interfaces just > like that, but when something gets put up there with a removal date > that is a good one year in the future, and userspace tools _still_ > continue to use it ... then, I suspect something's seriously wrong. > Hi, Satyam, Here I mean the sysfs conversion is not finished, like some ACPI device/driver attributes. i.e. we don't have the alternative in sysfs for all the ACPI proc I/F, which means that part of the ACPI proc I/F are still needed. > Either the feature-removal-schedule.txt file has become something > that users don't even bother checking, or else, they _know_ that > even if they don't bother keeping up with the pace in kernel-land, > that interface still won't go away (because they're still using it!). > In both the above cases, it appears that file itself has become > irrelevant and a "feature" that could be "removed" ... :-) Thanks, Rui - 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
