RE: [s-h] Re: ALSA patch for 2.5.2pre9 kernel

[Dimitrie Paun <dimi@intelliware.ca>]

> From: Linus Torvalds [mailto:torvalds@transmeta.com]
> 
> This is my current feeling.
> 
> However, la donna é mobile, and I'm a primus donna, fer 
> shure. So don't take it _too_ seriously, continue to argue 
> the merits of other approaches.

That's good to know. So let's do so:

There is no one grouping: things can be grouped in any number 
of ways, and for this very reason, a strictly hierarchical
grouping does not cut it. What I'm trying to say is that at
certain point, a given grouping characteristics becomes less 
important (say sound) and other (which crosscut other parts of
the source) increase in importance (say drivers).

For this reason, I think the current organization (net/core +
drivers/net) is more practical then the one which initially 
screams at any CompSci guy (net/core + net/drivers). 

Now, whichever one we choose, I'd _hate_ to see net organized
one way and sound the other way. It would be just ugly. That,
together with the fact that I don't think that putting everything
under sound/ is in any way superior to the current method,
I would suggest we stick to: sound/core + drivers/sound.

--
Dimi.