Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 00:05:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 00:05:59 -0400 Received: from 12-237-135-160.client.attbi.com ([12.237.135.160]:18695 "EHLO Midgard.attbi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 00:05:59 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Kelledin To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/9] 2.5.6 lm_sensors Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 23:08:54 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.2 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200207192308.54936.kelledin+LKML@skarpsey.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1058 Lines: 24 > Anything short of "Destroy my precious Thinkpad? [y/N]" > probably is insufficient. Frankly, I don't think even that's > enough. Once this is mainlined, someone will want to build a > kitchen sink distro kernel with sensor support and if the code > itself isn't autodetecting whether it's on a problematic > platform, it won't be long before someone boots their Thinkpad > off a friend's CDR and toasts it. I agree, the lm_sensors driver should maintain a blacklist for ThinkPads, and make it possible to disable the blacklist only by going in and hacking the kernel source manually. Whenever the lm_sensors drivers detect a blacklisted ThinkPad, they should vehemently refuse to function. -- Kelledin "If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?" - 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/