linux-kernel - Re: Thermal kernel events API to userspace - Was: Re: thermal: Avoid CONFIG

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: <1295942269.1866.1201.camel@rui>
Date:	Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:57:49 +0800
From:	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
To:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
Cc:	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
	"R, Durgadoss" <durgadoss.r@...el.com>,
	"jdelvare@...ell.com" <jdelvare@...ell.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	"linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-trace-users@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-trace-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Thermal kernel events API to userspace - Was: Re: thermal:
 Avoid CONFIG_NET compile dependency

On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 00:07 +0800, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > I wonder whether netlink is the way to go for thermal
> > events at all.
> > Sending an udev event would already contain the sysfs
> > path to the thermal device. A variable which thermal event
> > got thrown could get added and userspace can read out the rest
> > easily from sysfs files. But I expect udev is not intended
> > for such general events?
> 
> udev is heavyweight in the userspace side, we'd be much better off using the
> ACPI event interface (which is netlink), or a new one to deliver system
> status events, instead of continously abusing udev for this stuff.
> 
> > > > Also, the thermal_aux0 and _aux1, we can use the final format specified by you.
> > > > enum events {
> > > >  	THERMAL_CRITICAL,
> > > >  	/* user defined thermal events */
> > > >  	THERMAL_USER_AUX0,
> > > >  	THERMAL_USER_AUX1,
> > > >  	THERMAL_DEV_FAULT,
> > > >  };
> 
> Please give us at least two levels of thermal alarm: critical and emergency
> (or warning and critical -- it doesn't matter much, as long as there are at
> least two levels, and which one comes first is defined by the
> specification).  I'd have immediate use for them on thinkpads.
> 
> It is probably best to have three levels (warning, critical, emergency).
> Best not to tie the API/ABI to the notion of "too hot", one can also alarm
> when it starts to get to cold.
> 
when it's the "too hot" case, what kind of action should be taken upon
the warning/critical/emergency events?
I mean what's the difference between these three levels.

thanks,
rui


--
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/