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

[Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>]

On Wednesday 18 November 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> 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.

And to make it really realistic, it should be a use case which needs a 
value between 0 and 1 C and where a value of 1 doesn't work.