On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:46:32 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 09:30:22AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Hi Guenter, > > > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:31:38 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > The lm90 driver with its LM90_HAVE_BROKEN_ALERT flag has the same problem. > > > Sure, one can simply disable alerts forever after the first alert is triggered, > > > as the driver does right now, but that is really just as helpful as having > > > no alerts at all. > > > > This isn't what the lm90 driver is doing. Look at the end of > > lm90_update_device(), alarms are re-enabled if needed. I agree that it > > isn't bullet proof, as it only works if user-space is reading at least > > one value repeatedly, but it's way better than what you described. > > Ah, I missed that. Not much better, though. It means that applications > would have to start polling after the first alarm is seen on a device, > and keep doing so until the last alarm is gone. Correct. Following your idea, this could be replaced by a kernel thread / tasklet / whatever that would only run when needed. I wonder if someday hardware vendors will start doing their work properly so that we don't have to bloat our driver code? Probably not :( -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
