| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 21:33:19 +0000 From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com> Cc: rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>, Marcelo Roberto Jimenez <mroberto@...i.cetuc.puc-rio.br> Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 04/10] RTC: Cleanup rtc_class_ops->read_alarm() On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 01:21:13PM -0800, john stultz wrote: > But if you just mean trying to keep multiple alarms scheduled across > resets, I don't think that is something we can emulate (since the kernel > doesn't have any other persistent storage). But due to the lack of > consistency in RTC hardware, I don't think its a reasonable expectation > for applications to have. I'm saying that I've got concerns about providing that functionality at all as it's going to be a pure software at runtime thing - the kernel can't do anything here that userspace couldn't already do and there are things that userspace can do that the kernel can't. If the hardware could do it then great but otherwise it feels like you'd be better off with a program in userspace owning the hardware and dealing with the resource contention. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists