linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com>
To: "'Miles Lane'" <miles@megapathdsl.net>,
	Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@zmailer.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: 2.5 module development mailing list needed?  [Fwd: Linux Secu rity Module Interface]
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:33:43 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4148FEAAD879D311AC5700A0C969E8905DE823@orsmsx35.jf.intel.com> (raw)

> > 	Proper place to do this discussion is 
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> 
> It sounds good in theory.  In practice, though, almost all of the
> design discussions have been occuring in private e-mail.
> For example, I have seen none of the messages discussing
> the changes planned for the power management stuff in 2.5,
> even though these changes will apparantly touch every single
> modular driver.  I know for a fact that the changes planned
> to enable better implementation of PCMCIA support have
> gone on between only a few developers.  Also, from the
> announcement from the Security Module folks, I gather that
> there discussions haven't been held on LKML and aren't
> planned to migrate here.

IMO, the non-LKML lists exist so that developers can go off and have long,
boring, highly technical discussions without everyone having to wade through
it. It's not private email, it's just another list. So, subscribe, or look
at the archives. Most people don't care about this stuff, so the ones that
do should opt-in to whatever list.

> So, if you really think that all these module-related design
> discussions should happen on LKML, we're going to have
> to convince a bunch of people to move their discussions
> here.  This will not necessarily be easy.  I know that the
> reason that many of these discussions occur between only
> a few people is that these folks want a decent signal to
> noise ratio.  That's why I proposed a "2.5-module-devel"
> list.  It would allow people who really care about this stuff
> to coordinate their work.

I am not positive that your initial premise is entirely correct. For
example, it's way too early to say definitively, but right now I don't see
ACPI or power management requiring any changes to the module architecture.
(Driver arch maybe, but not module arch)

So, maybe you should just copy the two lists (hotplug and security) in
question?

Regards -- Andy


             reply	other threads:[~2001-04-11 17:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-04-11 17:33 Grover, Andrew [this message]
2001-04-11 19:58 ` 2.5 module development mailing list needed? [Fwd: Linux Secu rity Module Interface] Miles Lane

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=4148FEAAD879D311AC5700A0C969E8905DE823@orsmsx35.jf.intel.com \
    --to=andrew.grover@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matti.aarnio@zmailer.org \
    --cc=miles@megapathdsl.net \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).