Thomas Renninger wrote:No, it is a Pentium M desktop board.: Chipset i915GM, FSB 533MHz, max 2GB DDR2 RAM, 2 PCI and 1 16x PCI Express slots, serial, parallel, usb, firewire, 2x Marvel Gigabit Ethernet, Realtek ALC 880 sound, IDE, Intel SATA and SiI SATA Raid, FDC, DVI and VGA video out etc. Very low power consumption: ~40W to 65W for the whole system, except monitor. Well, it would not be the first time to eliminate a regression by reverting a patch after it was accepted previously. But I _need_ to raise the unreasonably low passive trip point. We could decide to protect the innocent user by allowing write access to trip_points only after a previous echo "I know what I am doing" > /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/THRM/enable_really_dangerous_options if we believe that this is a good idea ... Andi Kleen wrote: > I don't think it's that unreasonable to require source code modifications > for anything that can kill hardware. At least that raises the barrier > a bit and hopefully ensures people think twice about it and then really > only blame themselves if anything goes wrong. Andi, would the above be mechanism sufficiently safe for your taste? cu, Knut -
| Hiten Pandya | Re: up? (emacs docbook xml ide) |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Roland Dreier | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Florian Schmidt | blacklist kernel boot option |
git: | |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
