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: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:07:14 +0100 Message-ID: <200911180007.16167.elendil@planet.nl> References: <200911172227.nAHMRZX8023365@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <200911172342.58802.elendil@planet.nl> <20091117225204.GB24273@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cpsmtpm-eml110.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.14]:64114 "EHLO CPSMTPM-EML110.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756410AbZKQXHL (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:07:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091117225204.GB24273@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: > 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