From: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@gmail.com>
To: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Henne <henne@nachtwindheim.de>,
"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@infradead.org>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][ACPI][BUTTON] remove procfs-interface
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:37:07 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a781481a0707121207o3497edbye9f89c9f2589f3e5@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <823A93EED437D048963A3697DB0E35DE7314AB@pdsmsx414.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On 7/12/07, Zhang, Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> wrote:
> Well, the ACPI sysfs conversion is not finished yet
> [...]
> I'm not sure if the button sysfs I/F is already finished.
> We'd better make a double check. :)
Ok, this sounds reasonable.
> and some user space tools still use the ACPI procfs.
But this does *not*, IMHO. It quite defeats the whole concept of
feature-removal-schedule.txt. I think that file exists precisely
because we cannot gratuitously break userspace interfaces just
like that, but when something gets put up there with a removal date
that is a good one year in the future, and userspace tools _still_
continue to use it ... then, I suspect something's seriously wrong.
Either the feature-removal-schedule.txt file has become something
that users don't even bother checking, or else, they _know_ that
even if they don't bother keeping up with the pace in kernel-land,
that interface still won't go away (because they're still using it!).
In both the above cases, it appears that file itself has become
irrelevant and a "feature" that could be "removed" ... :-)
> The schedule of removing ACPI procfs I/F will be changed to Jan 08.
> I'm about to send a patch to update it.
Satyam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-12 19:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-12 8:58 Henne
2007-07-12 9:00 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-07-12 9:40 ` Henne
2007-07-12 9:46 ` Zhang, Rui
2007-07-12 10:26 ` Richard Hughes
2007-07-12 14:38 ` Brown, Len
2007-07-12 19:07 ` Satyam Sharma [this message]
2007-07-13 7:23 ` Zhang Rui
2007-07-16 7:35 ` [PATCH][BUTTON] " Stefan Seyfried
2007-07-16 7:47 ` Satyam Sharma
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a781481a0707121207o3497edbye9f89c9f2589f3e5@mail.gmail.com \
--to=satyam.sharma@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=henne@nachtwindheim.de \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®