Re: Allow userspace do something special on overtemp

[Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>]

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!