On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 04:49:41PM +0100, Sami Kerola wrote:
> Couple days ago Benno Schulenberg mentioned email with subject 'cytune:
> misnamed long options' usage() being a bit misleading that I concurred
> with note that the cytune could probably be improved various ways. This
> patch set proposes the improvements I had in mind.
>
> Please notice that I do not have hardware to test the cytune command, so
> testing after the changes did not happen. All I can say I tried to be
> careful not to break program logic, and hopefully that will work.
Frankly, I'm a little bit nervous from all the invasive cytune
changes, because we have no way how to test it. It's fine to change
warning/error messages, usage() or so, but the another changes
without tests seem risky.
The question is if we have to maintain HW specific util, particularly
when the HW seem rarely available (ebay only?). Maybe the best would
be to drop cytune.c from u-l and suggest to possible users to use
old u-l versions or maintain cytune.c outside u-l.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
