[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [lm-sensors] [REGRESSION, ABI] Re: LMSENSORS: 2.6.26-rc, enabling ACPI Termal Zone support costs sensors
On 22-06-08 20:07, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Rene Herman wrote:
>> On 22-06-08 16:29, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Rene Herman wrote:
>>>> This is an ABI breakage issue and an unfortunate one at that:
>>> No it is not, in 2.6.26rcX, the acpi thermalzones have grown a hwmon
>>> interface, that is they register a hwmon device so that "sensors" and
>> [ ... ]
>> Now what? Yes it is. works and 2.6.26-rcX with the same
>> config options and the same userspace does not.
> Know what? No it isn't. Just because some random userspace apps breaks
> because certain _assumptions_ no longer hold true, does not make
> something an ABI breakage.
> I agree with you that the results are still no good though.
> Know something else? I've just stopped caring about this issue, I'm not
> the author of the changes causing said breakage. I'm merely an
> lm_sensors (both userspace and kernel space) developer who was heavily
> involved in getting this fixed for lm_sensors-3.0.2, and I believe that
> adding yet another kconfig option which we then carry for years and
> years is _not_ a good solution. Some userspace utlities like udev sit
> very close to the kernel and sometimes an kernel update mandates a new
> udev. To me this is much the same.
> But at the end of the day, I do not feel responsible for this as I'm not
> the author of the code causing the breakage. I'm just someone who knows
> the ins and outs and tried to help, but given the treatment and thanks
> I've been getting for my help I'm stopping with helping now.

What on earth are you talking about? Could you please re-read? I didn't
"treat badly" you, hwmon, acpi or whatever.

I'm simply pointing out the problem that 2.6.26 is going to break all
setups using lm_sensors 2.0 (which among many, many others includes
every single slackware and derivative system on the planet).

We are not having a flamewar. If you think that every disagreement or
pointing out of a problem constitutes as much, that in itself is a
problem but it's not mine. I reported the problem and then posted a
patch that solves it one particular way.

Another way to solve it _could_ be to just make up a device link if
something generic is available so that sensors doesn't trip over it in
the first place but I don't know if that's a good option. You might.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Treatment? What treatment? I
just want to get the above mentioned problem fixed and didn't suggest
anything else. Let's get the problem fixed.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-22 20:27    [W:0.105 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site