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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
