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-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
