lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce
Date
Am Dienstag, 26. Mai 2009 schrieb Oliver Neukum:
> Am Dienstag, 26. Mai 2009 00:58:53 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > No, I am afraid it is not. The average user has no clue. Even if that
> > > is not the problem, the user never knows for sure he has encountered
> > > the worst case.
> >
> > OK there, but surely it's better to have a sysfs attribute than a fixed
> > value?
>
> Why? The driver knows best. Tunables are generally the worst solution.

I agree, but what about the not so ideal real-world? What about closed source
drivers? Who is going to educate closed source driver writers to inform the
kernel about their memory requirements early enough? And how long will this
take?

I think at least as an interim measure it makes sense to have a sysfs value.
Or discourage closed-source drivers even more.

I prefer open-source gfx drivers and don't need extra pages allowance, but
that might not hold true for everyone.

--
Martin Steigerwald - team(ix) GmbH - http://www.teamix.de
gpg: 19E3 8D42 896F D004 08AC A0CA 1E10 C593 0399 AE90
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-27 16:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans