From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752066AbZHZQs3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:48:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751601AbZHZQs3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:48:29 -0400 Received: from cpsmtpm-eml110.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.14]:57310 "EHLO CPSMTPM-EML110.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750738AbZHZQs2 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:48:28 -0400 From: Frans Pop To: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] thermal: add sanity check for the passive attribute Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:48:28 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zhang Rui References: <1251303445-25317-1-git-send-email-elendil@planet.nl> <1251303445-25317-5-git-send-email-elendil@planet.nl> <20090826162342.GA15868@srcf.ucam.org> In-Reply-To: <20090826162342.GA15868@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200908261848.29897.elendil@planet.nl> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2009 16:48:30.0016 (UTC) FILETIME=[0A55B400:01CA266D] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 06:17:23PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > Values below 40000 milli-celsius (limit is somewhat arbitrary) > > don't make sense and can cause the system to go into a thermal > > heart attack: the actual temperature will always be lower and > > thus the system will be throttled down to its lowest setting. > > Not keen on this - it's a pretty arbitrary cutoff, and there are some > cases where someone might want this value. Policy belongs in userspace, > and all that. What cases do you see? Testing? Or systems that might have to operate at such a low temperature? I deliberately chose a value that's at a level that's easy to reach. I agree it is arbitrary, but it will prevent major confusion when someone like me echo's 95 directly in sysfs. Would 1000 (1 °C) perhaps be more acceptable as a limit? I doubt there are valid use-cases for below 0 temps :-)