On 04/25/10 17:45, tytso@xxxxxxx wrote: > On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 05:23:06PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> Yeah, I think that it should be in procfs. It's not strictly closed >> to new files. (IOW, I'm sure that we can find a bunch of recent files >> added to procfs.) > > That's reasonable (I think the whole /proc is evil crusade is really > dumb) --- but at the same time, remember how frustrating it is for the > poor embedded developer who doesn't know who to ignore and what > "rules" to ignore. They were told months ago /proc is evil, and so > they moved it to /debugfs, precisely because it was billed as "it has > no rules". For all I know some helpful community developer may have > even suggested that to them. > > It is extremely frustrating to embedded developers when they get > conflicting advice, especially in this case, when it was *in* /proc in > the first place. I'm not sure what to do about this --- my approach > is to sometimes say, "f*ck it, that's stupid advice", and ship it to > Linus, who tends to be *much* less of a pendant than most of the > people who review code --- but that's because I know what I can > ignore. (I seriously doubt Linus cares much about whether it ends up > the file ends up /debugfs or /proc, and would take the code either > way.) But for someone who doesn't understand when you can do this, > and who tries to follow every single piece of criticism they get, the > end result can often be a huge amount fo wasted time and frustration. > > It would be nice if we could get better at this, since I'm sure this > is not the only time when embedded code submissions have gotten what > the submitting developers might consider to be a runaround.... Agreed, we could/should do much better. Agreed, I'm sure that it is frustrating to the contributors. Agreed about Linus taking it either way. :) Thanks for your summary and bringing it up (yet again). > (And just to be clear, I'm not criticising your commends; my personal > preference is slightly in favor of /proc, but more than anythign else, > I consider it a very minor point. I just want to point out that they > _started_ with the file in /proc and changed it to /debugfs based on > someone NACK'ing their patch, with a "/proc, eeeeewwww" comment. > Sometimes I think some code reviewers get too much of a sense of power > trip by thinking they can NACK other people's code over their own pet > peeves.... instead of approaching it from a somewhat more collegial > point of view trying to make the code better. Present company > excepted, of course. :-) -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
