On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 10:59 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:58:53 +1000 > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:58 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > > When did this change from "considered an internal implementation > > > issue, and not really an interface" to "all new interfaces"? > > > > Interesting blurb... that's not everybody's opinion and I would argue > > that supporting AMP kernels isn't something we want to do with closed > > source crap. > > I'm not advocating "closed source crap", just that if something is > "policy" (as opposed to opinion), it'd be nice if the documentation > actually matched.
Well, in Linux, the line between opinion and policy is quite blurred. I don't know for sure what Linus himself thinks here and various other maintainers have expressed various opinions as well. As far as I'm concerned, I don't see the point in encouraging binary junk, especially for low level interfaces like this one. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev