[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080507134930.47d5ed6d@i1501.lan.towertech.it>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 13:49:30 +0200
From: Alessandro Zummo <alessandro.zummo@...ertech.it>
To: rtc-linux@...glegroups.com
Cc: dwmw2@...radead.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] RTC: Class device support for
persistent clock
On Wed, 07 May 2008 09:24:15 +0100
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> Ooh, shiny -- you saved me the trouble of doing this (and hopefully also
> the trouble of looking through it to check whether all the callers of
> read_persistent_clock() can sleep, etc.?)
I knew you would have liked that patch :)
> One thing I was going to do in rtc_update_persistent_clock() was make it
> use mutex_trylock() for grabbing rtc->lock. We go to great lengths to
> make sure we're updating the clock at the correct time -- we don't want
> to be doing things which delay the update. So we should probably just
> use mutex_trylock() and abort the update (this time) if it fails.
agreable.
> I was also thinking of holding the RTC_HCTOSYS device open all the time,
> too. If it's a problem that you then couldn't unload the module, perhaps
> a sysfs interface to set/change/clear which device is used for this?
mm.. let's keep it easy. the chances the rtc is in use
are usually real low.
--
Best regards,
Alessandro Zummo,
Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy
http://www.towertech.it
--
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