linux-kernel - Re: [Kernel-discuss] Re: [PATCH 3/7] [RFC] Battery monitoring class

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <41840b750704121934g2771cc0er308eb4f9c8a1cb80@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:34:06 -0400
From:	"Shem Multinymous" <multinymous@...il.com>
To:	"Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <hmh@....eng.br>
Cc:	"Anton Vorontsov" <cbou@...l.ru>,
	"Paul Sokolovsky" <pmiscml@...il.com>,
	"Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-discuss@...dhelds.org
Subject: Re: [Kernel-discuss] Re: [PATCH 3/7] [RFC] Battery monitoring class

Hi,

On 4/12/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > * Yup, I've read last discussion regarding batteries, and I've seen
> >   objections against "charge" term, quoting Shem Multinymous:
> >
> >   "And, for the reasons I explained earlier, I strongly suggest not using
> >   the term "charge" except when referring to the action of charging.
> >   Hence:
> >   s/charge_rate/rate/;  s/charge/capacity/"
> >
> >   But lets think about it once again? We'll make things much cleaner
> >   if we'll drop "capacity" at all.
>
> I stand with Shem on this one.  The people behind the SBS specification
> seems to agree... that specification is aimed at *engineers* and still
> avoids the obvious trap of using "charge" due to its high potential for
> confusion.
>
> I don't even want to know how much of a mess the people writing applets
> woudl make of it...

With fixed-units files, having *_energy and *_capacity isn't too clear
either... Nor is it consistent with SBS, since SBS uses "capacity" to
refer to either energy or charge, depending on a units attribute.

As a compromise, how about using "energy" and "charge" for quantities,
and "charging" (i.e., a verb) when referring to the operation?

BTW,  tp_smapi uses "charge" and "charging" interchangeably; that was
a  mistake.

  Shem
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/