Pavel Machek wrote:

Hi!

quoted

operating points it is possible to implement the "cpufreq frequency 
selection logic" in user space and having such functionality in the kernel 
just violates the main rule of having everything possible outside of the 
kernel.

You got the rules wrong. "Keep the code out of kernel" is important
rule, but probably not the main one.

funny. not to mention that it was not the only argument I presented but please 
tell us explicitly what's your reason to blow out kernel footprint by the code 
which can be handled outside the kernel. I'd prefer to see technical reasons a 
kind of latencies, etc but not  the constant refrain "don't touch cpufreq 
interface". Especially considering that proposed improvements _do_ _not_ 
_change_ the interface.

And just FYI kernel footprint was stated as one of main current issues at least 
on the last OLS.

quoted

Paval, plz NOTE, that  you don't have lkml in CC on this thread and I 
personally feel that you've brought a really terrible confusion to everyone 
with your lkml step. I'm wondering whether you are braking "no cross 
postings" rule as well.....

Cc-ing lkml is considered okay.

Anyway, please do _proper_ submission, 

I already did _proper_ submissions several time on IMO the _proper_ list.

cc-ing lkml, explaining why it
is needed so that me and lkml actually know what is going on. 

will do

Eugeny

Include
those "elevator pitches".
									Pavel