Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:21:47 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |