[cgl_discussion] Feedback on Requirements doc 20020417

Randy.Dunlap rddunlap at osdl.org
Wed Apr 24 11:52:28 PDT 2002

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Khalid Aziz wrote:

| Here is my feedback on the requirements doc:

Here are what I see as the Requirements spec problem areas.

*1.  Anything that points to unpublished/internal references, like "spec needed
	from Intel" or "from Monta Vista" (as examples).
	These seem to be slow coming (and I understand that they have to
	get approvals...)
	Not having these will at best slow us down, could make these items
	become Priority 2 (not for initial delivery of CGL) if currently at
	Priority 1.
	There are __too many__ of these (that are still unpublished).
	It's OK to point to external references in the Requirements spec.
	if they are published.
  Can we get some feedback on what to expect about these
  unpublished specs?

50:	Linux Panic Handler Enhancement
	what model, references, specs, API?

105:	I have no problem with Priority 1, just where will it come from?

111:	need more clarification; need h/w support.
	(from Khalid and POC mtg today)

113:	ditto.

167:	live system dump:  should be doable, but remove the phrase
	"without disturbing the system execution"

200:	needs to be rewritten to state a requirement.

210.2:	problematic...


More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list