cvs commit: src/etc Makefile sensorsd.conf src/etc/defaults rc.conf src/etc/rc.d Makefile sensorsd src/lib/libc/gen sysctl.3 src/sbin/sysctl sysctl.8 sysctl.c src/share/man/man5 rc.conf.5 src/share/man/man9 Makefile sensor_attach.9 src/sys/conf f

Joao Barros joao.barros at
Mon Oct 15 03:44:00 PDT 2007

On 10/15/07, Scott Long <scottl at> wrote:
> Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > Quoting Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at> (from Sun, 14 Oct 2007
> > 17:54:21 +0000):
> >
> >> My only beef is with the architecture of the sensors framework, and
> >> as a consequence thereof, with the actual code as well.
> >
> > When I asked you about a proposal how a better architecture looks like,
> > you didn't came up with an explanation and you didn't came up with a
> > list of things which you think are bad in the sensors framework. You
> > also didn't respond to counterarguments from me.
> >
> > I don't think it is fair to make such a noise, without coming up with
> > technical facts.
> >
> > Note: I don't object to backing out the commit. But as this seems to be
> > on the desk of core@, I wait for their decision regarding this (as it is
> > self contained and doesn't interfere with other stuff, we don't need to
> > hurry).
> >
> >> In OpenBSD the sensors framework has already turned into a dumping
> >> ground, and I have all reason to belive that we will see the same
> >> under FreeBSD.
> >
> > It will be what we make out of this.
> >
> >> See for instance Marc Balmers presentation from EuroBSDcon2007 about
> >> putting radio-timecode receivers under the sensors framework, or
> >
> > I don't see a need to port this part instead of using the existing
> > time-infrastructure in our kernel (and I don't have my fingers in the
> > time related code at all like you, so I hope other people think similar).
> >
> >> listen to the various mumblings about putting RAID-controller status
> >> under sensors framework.
> >
> > What's wrong with this? Currently each RAID driver has to come up with
> > his own way of displaying the RAID status. It's like saying that each
> > network driver has to implement/display the stuff you can see with
> > ifconfig in its own way, instead of using the proper network driver
> > interface for this.
> >
> For the love of God, please don't use RAID as an example to support your
> argument for the sensord framework.  Representing RAID state is several
> orders of magnitude more involved than representing network state.
> There are also landmines in the OpenBSD bits of RAID support that are
> best left out of FreeBSD, unless you like alienating vendors and risking
> legal action.  Leave it alone.  Please.  I don't care what you do with
> lmsensors or cpu power settings or whatever.  Leave RAID out of it.
> Thanks,
> Scott

Are you saying I shouldn't proceed with the bio port?

Joao Barros

More information about the cvs-src mailing list