On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 23:26 +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > If (cytation from Linus) "a 'spec' is close to useless" .. > Q: why the hell in kernel tree is included Documentation/ subdirectory ? > Is it raly content of this directory is "close to useless" or maybe it not > contains some specyfications ? :> Let me rephrase what Linus said, to help remove the misreading that seems so common today. I think a fair rewording would be, "A spec is a guideline. When it fails to match reality, continuing to follow it is a tremendous mistake." Additionally, I think the overall LKML feeling on hardware specs and the corresponding software abstractions to deal with it can be summarized something like this: When the spec provides a software design that doesn't fit into the overall structure of the Linux kernel, the spec should be treated as a suggestion for a software design. The *interface* that the spec documents should be followed, where it moves out of the overall structure, but internally, a design that fits into the Linux kernel is more important than following a spec that doesn't fit. -- Ryan Anderson AutoWeb Communications, Inc. email: ryan@xxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
