On Thursday, October 21, 2010, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 08:32:42PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Still, if user space has problems with failing reads from the sysfs > > attributes, it may be better to simply put -1 in there. Patch is > > appended, please test. > > This patch does what it says on the tin (returns -1 in sysfs on my EeePC > 900). So: > > Tested-by: Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@xxxxxxxxx> > > It's a shame the previous changes didn't work as they stopped a buggy > upower using the -1 value (and producing a nonsense rate like 8.4e-06) Hmm. So upower _doesn't_ handle -1? What does it do with -1000, then? > but it's not clear which part of the stack can't handle -ENODATA > perhaps it is another part of the kernel? I don't really think it's a part of the kernel. > Richard, any chance of upower being changed to test for -1 before doing > doing anything with current_now ( > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/DeviceKit/upower/tree/src/linux/up-device-supply.c?id=5387183d53c16a987a0737c1bdec1b62edf3daa6#n561)? > I guess there are a whole bunch of other attributes that could > theoretically be -1 and shouldn't be used if they return it... If user space doesn't handle -1 correctly too, I think the right approach for us should be to use the previous version of the patch and return error code for unknown values. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
