lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Allow userspace do something special on overtemp
Hi!

> > hmm, yes, but it still would be nice to properly shutdown instead of
> > fail.
>
> The reality is that most of the critical temperature events
> are false positives, and for those that are not, the hardware
> will keep itself from burning even when the OS control fails.
>
> If we confuse some self-supporting kernel types, that is too bad.
> If they're supporting themselves, they should read the change logs
> for the kernels that they download. I don't think
> this is of a magnitude that it needs to wait for 2.7 to be fixed.

There's nothing to fix. It is not broken. It just does /sbin/poweroff;
that's correct.

/sbin/poweroff is there on almost all systems; that is not case with
acpid. Currently *noone* has acpid that handles critical properly,
right?

So I believe that change is bad idea. /sbin/overtemp lets user
configure it etc.

Ouch and btw I've done some torturing on one prototype (AMD). It had
thermal at 98Celsius (specs for this cpu said 95C max), and I ended my
test at 105Celsius. I do not know about TM1/TM2 etc, but in this case
hardware clearly failed to do the right thing.

I do not know why acpid should be involved in this. execing binary
seems safer to me -- acpid might have died (OOM? segfault?), and exec
does not strike me like too ugly.
Pavel
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.050 / U:1.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site