Re: [PATCH 4/6] thermal: add sanity check for the passive attribute

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 06:17:23PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Values below 40000 milli-celsius (limit is somewhat arbitrary)
> > don't make sense and can cause the system to go into a thermal
> > heart attack: the actual temperature will always be lower and
> > thus the system will be throttled down to its lowest setting.
>
> Not keen on this - it's a pretty arbitrary cutoff, and there are some
> cases where someone might want this value. Policy belongs in userspace,
> and all that.

What cases do you see? Testing? Or systems that might have to operate at 
such a low temperature? I deliberately chose a value that's at a level 
that's easy to reach.

I agree it is arbitrary, but it will prevent major confusion when someone 
like me echo's 95 directly in sysfs.
Would 1000 (1 °C) perhaps be more acceptable as a limit? I doubt there are 
valid use-cases for below 0 temps :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/