From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752739Ab3LBI2N (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Dec 2013 03:28:13 -0500 Received: from eusmtp01.atmel.com ([212.144.249.242]:22048 "EHLO eusmtp01.atmel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752497Ab3LBI2L (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Dec 2013 03:28:11 -0500 Message-ID: <529C4492.6060203@atmel.com> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:28:02 +0100 From: Nicolas Ferre Organization: atmel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: rtc-at91rm9200: Corrected alarm over day/month wrap: References: <1384795254-11996-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> <20131118143740.cdb5c0ee72b3d68e443afd66@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20131118143740.cdb5c0ee72b3d68e443afd66@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.161.30.18] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 18/11/2013 23:37, Andrew Morton : > On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:20:54 +0100 Nicolas Ferre wrote: > >> From: Linus Pizunski >> >> Update month and day of month to the alarm month/day instead >> of current day/month when setting the RTC alarm mask. >> >> Signed-off-by: Linus Pizunski >> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre > > I changed this to signed-off-by, as you were on the patch delivery path. > >> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c >> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c >> @@ -220,6 +220,8 @@ static int at91_rtc_setalarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm) >> >> at91_alarm_year = tm.tm_year; >> >> + tm.tm_mon = alrm->time.tm_mon; >> + tm.tm_mday = alrm->time.tm_mday; >> tm.tm_hour = alrm->time.tm_hour; >> tm.tm_min = alrm->time.tm_min; >> tm.tm_sec = alrm->time.tm_sec; > > I queued this for 3.13. Do we think it warrants a -stable backport? (I am late, but it seems this one is not sent to Linus yet...) Well, yes, we can tag this one for "-stable". The patch applies on nearly each kernel that I can think about (code is from 2.6.17-ish). But this patch applies with an offset... Best regards, -- Nicolas Ferre