Re: [PATCH 10/14/] Doc. sources: expose laptop-mode

From: Bart Samwel
Date: Mon May 22 2006 - 01:24:09 EST

Randy.Dunlap wrote:
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Expose example and tool source files in the Documentation/ directory in
their own files instead of being buried (almost hidden) in readme/txt files.

This will make them more visible/usable to users who may need
to use them, to developers who may need to test with them, and
to janitors who would update them if they were more visible.

Also, if any of these possibly should not be in the kernel tree at
all, it will be clearer that they are here and we can discuss if
they should be removed.

Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Documentation/dslm.c | 166 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Documentation/laptop-mode.txt | 170 ------------------------------------------

Arguably, dslm.c should be removed completely. It's something for which everyone who knows how to compile a file named "dslm.c" can write a usable replacement, using a couple of lines of shell scripting. If we should include anything, it should be those lines of shell scripting, in the docs, at most.

Point for discussion: should the laptop_mode script really still be in laptop-mode.txt? AFAIK most distros use laptop-mode-tools or use their own scripts to control this. Furthermore, the existing script is mostly unmaintained, and it is full of bugs that were fixed long ago in laptop-mode-tools (which was originally a fork of the script). I think it would be better to replace it with a bit of documentation on which things a laptop mode control script *should* tweak, *may want to* tweak, etc., accompanied by an explanation why these tweaks are needed. I.e, an "annotated spec", as one would expect to find in documentation. I'll submit a patch to this effect when I find some time.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at