From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [patch 08/12] thermal: add sanity check for the passive attribute Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:33:40 +0000 Message-ID: <20091117223340.GB23531@srcf.ucam.org> References: <200911172227.nAHMRZX8023365@imap1.linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:46820 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756166AbZKQWe5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:34:57 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200911172227.nAHMRZX8023365@imap1.linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, elendil@planet.nl, rui.zhang@intel.com As noted before, I'm not a fan of this approach - I can't think of many reasons why it'd be necessary to use temperatures below 1 degree C, but this constraint isn't present anywhere else in the thermal code and, really, there's plenty of things that people can break if they just echo incorrect values into /sys. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org