On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > > But it's all too late now, isn't it. This is the first time that > non-linux-acpi readers knew of the existence of this driver. Why do people even care? This driver is not going to be used in any situation where any regular person will _ever_ care. And if you don't like it, you don't have to enable it at all. That driver is ACPI-specific, is not very complex, is marked EXPERIMENTAL, and everybody including Len has said that _if_ the scheduler people can ever solve it at that level, it would be good. But as it is, it has NOTHING to do with the scheduler, and why _should_ any non-ACPI people know about the existence of that driver? In fact, the only reason the scheduler people even know about it is that Len at first tried to do something more invasive, and was shot down. Now it's just a driver, and the scheduler people can _try_ to do it some other way if they really care, but that's _their_ problem. Not the driver. In the meantime, I personally suspect we probably never want to even try to solve it in the scheduler, because why the hell should we care and add complex logic for something like that? At least not until we end up having the same issue on some other architecture too, and it turns from a hacky ACPI thing into something more. As it is, the driver is entirely self-contained and doesn't affect any other subsystem. Linus -- 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
