[lm-sensors] [RFC v2] Support of chassis intrusion detection

Fred . eldmannen at gmail.com
Tue Oct 12 09:15:03 CEST 2010


I am sorry tha I do not have the nescesary equipment nor skill set in
order to be able to help test
or contribute with code.

Now since the interface definition is upstreams, I hope that someone
may implement the feature
in at least one of the drivers.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Guenter Roeck
<guenter.roeck at ericsson.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 06:42:27PM -0400, Fred . wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Guenter Roeck
>> <guenter.roeck at ericsson.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 08:55:46AM -0400, Fred . wrote:
>> >> http://www.lm-sensors.org/ticket/2370
>> >> Ticket says the interface definition is now upstream.
>> >>
>> > It is.
>> Since it is, then I suppose its a good time to add support for this in
>> the user-space tools.
>>
>> >> Since the interface definition is upstreams, why have not support been
>> >> added to libsensors and sensors?
>> >>
>> > Browsing through the drivers, it seems that none have been converted
>> > to use the new interface. I would guess that until that has been done,
>> > it does not make sense to add untestable support for it to libsensors.
>> Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
>> Time to implement support for this in the user-space tools.
>> Hopefully support in drivers will follow.
>>
> This is not a matter of chicken and egg. Driver support must come first,
> to be able to test the user space tools. Besides, tools support w/o kernel
> support doesn't provide any value at all, untested or not.
>
> Since you state yourself that you don't have the technical knowledge to make
> any contribution yourself, it might be a good idea to listen to those who _do_
> have the technical knowledge when it comes to deciding what must come first.
> You can not both claim technical knowledge good enough to determine what
> comes first, but then claim to not have the knowledge to actually do the work.
>
> Frankly, I think you are shooting yourself into the foot here. You keep
> making requests without providing anything. If you had asked a bit more
> friendly and at the very least offered to help with testing, people might
> be more willing to support you. But all we get is your demands and a statement
> that you will not (be able to) contribute yourself. Not really a good start.
>
> Guenter
>




More information about the lm-sensors mailing list