Am Dienstag, 26. Mai 2009 schrieb Oliver Neukum: > Am Dienstag, 26. Mai 2009 00:58:53 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > > On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > No, I am afraid it is not. The average user has no clue. Even if that > > > is not the problem, the user never knows for sure he has encountered > > > the worst case. > > > > OK there, but surely it's better to have a sysfs attribute than a fixed > > value? > > Why? The driver knows best. Tunables are generally the worst solution. I agree, but what about the not so ideal real-world? What about closed source drivers? Who is going to educate closed source driver writers to inform the kernel about their memory requirements early enough? And how long will this take? I think at least as an interim measure it makes sense to have a sysfs value. Or discourage closed-source drivers even more. I prefer open-source gfx drivers and don't need extra pages allowance, but that might not hold true for everyone. -- Martin Steigerwald - team(ix) GmbH - http://www.teamix.de gpg: 19E3 8D42 896F D004 08AC A0CA 1E10 C593 0399 AE90
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
