From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 20:47:43 -0700 From: Matt Porter To: Eugene Surovegin Cc: Wolfgang Denk , Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: set_rtc_time() cleanup / normalization Message-ID: <20030513204743.A31841@home.com> References: <20030514000820.B3397C6092@atlas.denx.de> <5.1.0.14.2.20030513171616.037f6800@mail.ebshome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030513171616.037f6800@mail.ebshome.net>; from ebs@ebshome.net on Tue, May 13, 2003 at 05:30:13PM -0700 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 05:30:13PM -0700, Eugene Surovegin wrote: > >The main reason to remove it is thatit's broken (i. e. causes kernel > >crashes) on many hardware configurations. > > Well, properly implemented set_rtc_time will not cause kernel crashes. > I doesn't crash on our hardware. Guess why? Well, I didn't want to "me too" as an opponent of doing this in the kernel but I guess I need to. This type of thing doesn't *need* to be in the kernel because it can be implemented in userspace. > >and you just removed the only argument to put > >it into the timer interrupt at all. > > Well, I don't see such placement as an optimization, just as some place > from where it can be done easily without requiring cron, hwclock or other > usermode stuff. If cron and hwclock are too heavyweight for your fs then this is screaming for a simple busybox solution. I haven't looked at busybox in a while, most of it might even be there already in a slimmed down form factor. Regards, -- Matt Porter mporter@kernel.crashing.org ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/