On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 01:21:02PM +0100, Frederic Peters wrote: > > Martin-�ric Racine wrote: > > > > > > Sjoerd proposed to replace acme_error by g_warning; it *is* trivial. > > > > Patch attached. > > > > > > This patch fails as-is, because another patch removes that code fragment. > > > > Yes, it was done a bit too fast, Sjoerd pointed this in a later mail > > and announced he has a correct patch in his local package. > > So let's solve this. So, as i understand the current prefered fix is : > > 1) if there is no /proc/device-tree/aliases/via-pmu -> we issue a warning.
No. WThis means that we are on hardware not offering PMU so we issue nothing and we disable FB_LEVEL features completely. > 2) if the /dev/pmu device is not existent and/or not writteable > -> we issue a warning, and don't use the feature If /proc/device-tree/aliases/via-pmu is not user-writable, we issue a warning to syslog to remind the user that appropriate permissions are needed to access the feature. > 3) if the /dev/pmu is existent and writteable -> we use the feature Correct. > By default, the /dev/pmu is not writteable, so the feature is disabled, so we > need to add a line in Debian.Readme explaining this, and also the relative > unsecurity of this approach. Agreed. -- Martin-�ric Racine, ICT Consultant http://www.iki.fi/q-funk/
