On Wed, 26 May 2010 13:23:00 CDT, James Bottomley said: > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 19:51 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Darn, _we_ have to deal with that forever as it sets a crappy user > > space ABI in stone. > > I really don't see how it is ... the ABI comes with a switch that allows > it to be disabled, so only platforms wishing to use it have to support > it. Even on those platforms that do support it, we can translate most > of it into pm QoS stuff and if one day someone solves the rogue app > problem, we can migrate over. And yet, the OSS drivers are *still* in-tree, even though similar arguments apply to an OSS->ALSA migration. And there's a bunch of other stuff in Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt in a similar situation. Remember - programming is like sex. One poorly planned release and you're stuck maintaining it for years. :)
Attachment:
pgpukgmHTnNI5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
