> From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b at pacbell.net] > > > Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:36:37 +0200 > > From: Pavel Machek <pavel at ucw.cz> > > > > Kernel interface is not something to be experimented with. > > Disagree. How else to get it right?? > Try, learn, improve. That's experimentation. > Linux has no "stable API nonsense" ... > > The point of "cathedral vs. bazaar" was that experimentation > and evolution are more successful processes than "get it > right the first time". --- I think Pavel's point was that the userspace interface to the kernel (at least the syscall interface) is stable (open to Extension by addition of syscalls, but closed to modification or deletion of existing and that any experimentation needs to happen before functionality goes into the mainstream. That said, I do think we probably need to add a new interface to cover operating points, because some of believe that policy needs to be in user space and the whole point of the OP abstraction is that operating points are atomic. You can't just add knobs to control more factors, because all those knobs need to be turned at the same time. Setting an operating point is inherently an atomic operation, not n separate operations that can be taken serially. scott
