[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce
    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

    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 -
    gpg: 19E3 8D42 896F D004 08AC A0CA 1E10 C593 0399 AE90
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-27 16:41    [W:0.020 / U:1.792 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site