[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110420063426.GB20952@riccoc20.at.omicron.at>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:34:26 +0200
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] timers: posix interface for alarm-timers
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 04:58:30PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> This patch exposes alarm-timers to userland via the posix clock
> and timers interface, using two new clockids: CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM
> and CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM. Both clockids behave identically to
> CLOCK_REALTIME and CLOCK_BOOTTIME, respectively, but timers
> set against the _ALARM suffixed clockids will wake the system if
> it is suspended.
So, is there reason these cannot or should not be using the dynamic
posix clock interface?
> The semantics of the Android alarm driver are different from what
> this posix interface provides.
...
> One potential way to implement similar semantics may be via
> the timerfd infrastructure, but this needs more research.
>
> There may also need to be some sort of sysfs system level policy
> hooks that allow alarm timers to be disabled to keep them
> from firing at inappropriate times (ie: laptop in a well insulated
> bag, mid-flight).
I have not put hardly any thought into these issues, but the dynamic
interface gives you a character device at no extra charge.
Richard
--
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