On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:49:18 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 11:09 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:02:55 +0100, Christian Krafft wrote: > > > I will try to test your patch today, but only have a little time for this. > > > If I'm not getting it today, I'll continue next monday. > > > > Note that I managed to test the SVN version of sensors-detect myself > > (on ppc64) so I am confident that it works well now. > > > > > I'm not very convinced, that this is the right solution, but as a > > > circumvention, it will take the pressure away. > > > > What do you think would be the right solution? I agree that > > making /dev/port access safer at the kernel level is still needed. Do > > you have anything else in mind? > > "safer" how so ? > > How can the kernel differenciate between valid and non valid uses of > it ? I was referring to the kernel patch Christian submitted earlier this week which prevents oopses or machine checks when older versions of sensors-detect access /dev/port in unexpected ways. My update to sensors-detect was meant as a complement of his patch, not a replacement. -- Jean Delvare
