From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268868AbUHLXWz (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:22:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268866AbUHLXWz (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:22:55 -0400 Received: from gprs214-76.eurotel.cz ([160.218.214.76]:13960 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268873AbUHLXWe (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:22:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:21:47 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Len Brown Cc: Dax Kelson , trenn@suse.de, seife@suse.de, Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Allow userspace do something special on overtemp Message-ID: <20040812232147.GH15138@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20040811085326.GA11765@elf.ucw.cz> <1092269309.3948.57.camel@mentorng.gurulabs.com> <1092281393.7765.141.camel@dhcppc4> <20040812074002.GC29466@elf.ucw.cz> <1092320883.5021.173.camel@dhcppc4> <20040812202401.GB14556@elf.ucw.cz> <1092351080.5021.198.camel@dhcppc4> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1092351080.5021.198.camel@dhcppc4> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > hmm, yes, but it still would be nice to properly shutdown instead of > > fail. > > The reality is that most of the critical temperature events > are false positives, and for those that are not, the hardware > will keep itself from burning even when the OS control fails. > > If we confuse some self-supporting kernel types, that is too bad. > If they're supporting themselves, they should read the change logs > for the kernels that they download. I don't think > this is of a magnitude that it needs to wait for 2.7 to be fixed. There's nothing to fix. It is not broken. It just does /sbin/poweroff; that's correct. /sbin/poweroff is there on almost all systems; that is not case with acpid. Currently *noone* has acpid that handles critical properly, right? So I believe that change is bad idea. /sbin/overtemp lets user configure it etc. Ouch and btw I've done some torturing on one prototype (AMD). It had thermal at 98Celsius (specs for this cpu said 95C max), and I ended my test at 105Celsius. I do not know about TM1/TM2 etc, but in this case hardware clearly failed to do the right thing. I do not know why acpid should be involved in this. execing binary seems safer to me -- acpid might have died (OOM? segfault?), and exec does not strike me like too ugly. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!