[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: updating the RTC automagically
    Hi Ulrich.

    >>>>> I investigated what would be needed to set the RTC when the
    >>>>> system time changes. First the inverse function for mktime() is
    >>>>> needed (i.e. convert UNIX time to days, hours, months, etc.)
    >>>>> Then the function to set the RTC would have to be extended to
    >>>>> set _all_ the values, not just minute and second.

    >>>>> Should I take the date conversion routine from the C library
    >>>>> (i.e. copy the code)?

    >>>> Are you proposing to put this facility in the kernel? There's
    >>>> already a perfectly good userspace program to do that - take a
    >>>> peek at `man hwclock` for details.

    >>> A real UNIX system can also set the clock.

    >> Define "A real UNIX" for me, as you obviously mean something
    >> different to what I understand it to be - or, for that matter,
    >> what the authors of the various different UNIX clones I've used
    >> in my 20 years as a programmer understand it to be.

    > In case if you follow comp.protocols.time.ntp occasionally, you
    > will find out that a lot of problems are related to problems
    > where Linux does not update the RTC properly (e.g. when running
    > localtime, not UTC).

    I can understand the point you're making, but would have to point out
    that Linux is NOT the main culprit here - that 'honour' belongs to a
    certain MacroHard range of products.

    To be blunt, where a system needs to dual boot between LoseSleep and
    *ANY* decent operating system, and LoseSleep is set to honour DST,
    then the RTC *MUST* be run in localtime rather than UTC/GMT as if it
    isn't, LoseSleep will trash it for you. If you want to get this fixed,
    persuade MacroHard to fix it as they're the only ones who can...

    > Let's say HP-UX 11.0 is a real UNIX if that helps you.

    You still haven't convinved me that Linux is any less of a real UNIX,
    and arguments that clearly place the blame in the wrong place (like
    your argument above does) are unlikely to do so.

    > I'm also aware that the RTC update code is basically unchanged
    > since Linux 0.99.

    You're probably also aware that the most likely reason for that is
    that no change has ever been needed since then.

    >>>>> I'm not subscribed here, but I'd like to be CC:'d for
    >>>>> replies...

    >>>> There are quite a few people don't bother replying to mailing
    >>>> list postings that state the poster isn't subscribed to the
    >>>> list, on the basis of "if (s)he can't be bother to subscribe,
    >>>> I can't be bothered to reply"...

    >>> Getting 200 messages per day is not an option if it's not your
    >>> fulltime job.

    >> {Shrug} It's not my fulltime job, but I quite happily handle the
    >> full linux-kernel feed, together with several other mailing lists
    >> - my mailbox averages somewhere between 500 and 700 new messages
    >> a day.

    > Maybe you have a real Internet connection, possibly even at home.
    > Different here.

    Glancing at my (BT Highway) ISDN-2 connection, I wonder what sort of
    connection you have?

    >> However, that's beside the point: My comment was simply to
    >> explain why the author might not get as many replies as they
    >> might expect, and was NOT a criticism of any sort.

    >> It happens to be fact that such happens, as is the fact that
    >> some people have spam filters that kill any mail containing the
    >> word "subscribe" because of the number of such messages that

    > s/subscribe/subscribe\[^d\]/ ;-)

    Don't tell me, tell them. I don't have any such line in my spam
    filter, as should be apparent from the fact that I received your
    original email despite it containing the said word...

    >> reach the various mailing lists instead of majordomo or listserv
    >> or whatever. As a result, such people would not have even seen
    >> that message in the first place.

    Best wishes from Riley.

    PS: The kernel versions page is now back online at the URL below, and
    includes separate sublists both for each kernel series, and for
    each year of development.

    | There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux |
    | development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, |
    | in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone |
    | else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. |

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.026 / U:0.768 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site