From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frans Pop Subject: Re: [patch 08/12] thermal: add sanity check for the passive attribute Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:42:55 +0100 Message-ID: <200911172342.58802.elendil@planet.nl> References: <200911172227.nAHMRZX8023365@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <20091117223340.GB23531@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cpsmtpm-eml103.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.7]:54922 "EHLO CPSMTPM-EML103.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756501AbZKQWmy (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:42:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091117223340.GB23531@srcf.ucam.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rui.zhang@intel.com On Tuesday 17 November 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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. Personally I'd be in favor of adding more sanity checks rather than removing them. The cost of the check is virtually zero. Cheers, FJP