On Wed, 07 May 2008 09:24:15 +0100
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:


quoted text
> 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 :)
 
quoted text
> 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. 
 
quoted text
> 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

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/