> From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@kroah.com]
> Nice, thanks for pointing that out. But what about the fact that I
> think we can now start optimizing certain parts of the
> "generic" code to
> play nicer with Linux?
It is much much more important that ACPI be *correct* than fast or small. To
that end, it is better to not fork ACPI-Linux from ACPI-everyone else. Linux
benefits from core bugs found by other OSes (FBSD is not the only one - for
some reason I'm not allowed to mention who else is using ACPI CA but they
*do* send bug reports) and vice versa.
> Now I don't mean this to be an ACPI rant, I know why they did
> their code
> this way, and without it, there probably would not be any ACPI Linux
> code. I just don't think it's the best way (from an engineering
> standpoint) to do things. And again, we are getting way off
> topic from
> the original problem, sorry.
I'm used to ACPI ranting from all quarters, you know that ;-) but let me
just say this:
- ACPI is not performance-critical
- ACPI will never be simple and elegant, even if you made it Linux-specific
- Portability enhances correctness and maximizes developer productivity
- Read my lips, no new taxes!
(dunno where that last one came from ;-)
Regards -- Andy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:58 EST