On 22-06-08 20:07, Hans de Goede wrote: > Rene Herman wrote: >> On 22-06-08 16:29, Hans de Goede wrote: >> >>> Rene Herman wrote: >>>> This is an ABI breakage issue and an unfortunate one at that: >>>> >>> >>> No it is not, in 2.6.26rcX, the acpi thermalzones have grown a hwmon >>> interface, that is they register a hwmon device so that "sensors" and >> >> [ ... ] >> >> Now what? Yes it is. 2.6.25.7 works and 2.6.26-rcX with the same >> config options and the same userspace does not. > > Know what? No it isn't. Just because some random userspace apps breaks > because certain _assumptions_ no longer hold true, does not make > something an ABI breakage. > > I agree with you that the results are still no good though. > > Know something else? I've just stopped caring about this issue, I'm not > the author of the changes causing said breakage. I'm merely an > lm_sensors (both userspace and kernel space) developer who was heavily > involved in getting this fixed for lm_sensors-3.0.2, and I believe that > adding yet another kconfig option which we then carry for years and > years is _not_ a good solution. Some userspace utlities like udev sit > very close to the kernel and sometimes an kernel update mandates a new > udev. To me this is much the same. > > But at the end of the day, I do not feel responsible for this as I'm not > the author of the code causing the breakage. I'm just someone who knows > the ins and outs and tried to help, but given the treatment and thanks > I've been getting for my help I'm stopping with helping now. What on earth are you talking about? Could you please re-read? I didn't "treat badly" you, hwmon, acpi or whatever. I'm simply pointing out the problem that 2.6.26 is going to break all setups using lm_sensors 2.0 (which among many, many others includes every single slackware and derivative system on the planet). We are not having a flamewar. If you think that every disagreement or pointing out of a problem constitutes as much, that in itself is a problem but it's not mine. I reported the problem and then posted a patch that solves it one particular way. Another way to solve it _could_ be to just make up a device link if something generic is available so that sensors doesn't trip over it in the first place but I don't know if that's a good option. You might. I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Treatment? What treatment? I just want to get the above mentioned problem fixed and didn't suggest anything else. Let's get the problem fixed. Rene.
