lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/9] PM: suspend_block: Add debugfs file
    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 ***


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-04-26 02:53    [W:0.026 / U:31.956 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site