Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> operating points it is possible to implement the "cpufreq frequency >> selection logic" in user space and having such functionality in the kernel >> just violates the main rule of having everything possible outside of the >> kernel. > > You got the rules wrong. "Keep the code out of kernel" is important > rule, but probably not the main one. funny. not to mention that it was not the only argument I presented but please tell us explicitly what's your reason to blow out kernel footprint by the code which can be handled outside the kernel. I'd prefer to see technical reasons a kind of latencies, etc but not the constant refrain "don't touch cpufreq interface". Especially considering that proposed improvements _do_ _not_ _change_ the interface. And just FYI kernel footprint was stated as one of main current issues at least on the last OLS. > >> Paval, plz NOTE, that you don't have lkml in CC on this thread and I >> personally feel that you've brought a really terrible confusion to everyone >> with your lkml step. I'm wondering whether you are braking "no cross >> postings" rule as well..... > > Cc-ing lkml is considered okay. > > Anyway, please do _proper_ submission, I already did _proper_ submissions several time on IMO the _proper_ list. >cc-ing lkml, explaining why it > is needed so that me and lkml actually know what is going on. will do Eugeny >Include > those "elevator pitches". > Pavel >
