Re: [patch 08/12] thermal: add sanity check for the passive attribute

[Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>]

On Tuesday 17 November 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:42:55PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It makes something that's potentially useful to someone impossible, for
> the benefit of people who can crash their system in half a dozen other
> ways by writing inappropriate values into other files.

If you can give me one valid use case for someone running a system with a 
thermal zone check below 1C I'll agree with you.

Cheers,
FJP