It does say to me, if as you say it's aimed at servers, and that does make sense, then why was the current system such a botched, messy, untidy job? I mean, if there's one instance where mutli-cpu support and hotplugging might be useful, it's in servers, supercomputer clusters, and that sort of thing. And that's the kind of territory where linux has tradtionally been the go-to choice, if I recall correctly. It's a tad ironic, is all I'm saying.
This sounds like a very common pattern:
- subsystem starts simple and grows incrementally
- design abstraction which was probably OK for the initial code is not sufficient to deal with growing complexity
- developers get together at conference and agree on how it should be done
- one developer writes first pass of code following new model
- old code tossed over nearest clump of cactus and badmouthed even by the people who wrote it
The difference here seems to be that the author of the new code also authored a particularly colourful description of the old code![]()