Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753962Ab0DZAvo (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:51:44 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:58806 "EHLO rcsinet10.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753387Ab0DZAvm (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:51:42 -0400 Message-ID: <4BD4E354.6010803@oracle.com> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:50:28 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap Organization: Oracle Linux Engineering User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-3.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tytso@mit.edu, Greg KH , Arve Hj?nnev?g , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Machek , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] PM: suspend_block: Add debugfs file References: <1271984938-13920-2-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1271984938-13920-3-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1271984938-13920-4-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1271984938-13920-5-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1271984938-13920-6-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <20100423135853.478af057.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20100425181517.GA22676@kroah.com> <4BD49D9D.7020004@oracle.com> <20100426000025.GE667@thunk.org> <4BD4DCEA.8060602@oracle.com> <20100426004558.GA13043@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: <20100426004558.GA13043@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-Source-IP: acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090208.4BD4E372.0117:SCFMA922111,ss=1,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2914 Lines: 56 On 04/25/10 17:45, tytso@mit.edu 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 *** -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/