lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] fix RTC_CLASS regression with PARISC
    On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:

    > On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
    > David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
    >
    > > From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
    > > Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:55:25 -0700
    > >
    > > > On Monday 08 September 2008, David Miller wrote:
    > > > > From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
    > > > > Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:29:20 -0700
    > > > >
    > > > > > That said, there's a bit of unresolved stuff around NTP hooks
    > > > > > in the kernel. Some patches are pending to let thtem work with
    > > > > > the RTC framework -- where writing an RTC may need to sleep,
    > > > > > for example because the RTC is on an I2C or SPI bus. And
    > > > > > then there's the discussion of whether that shouldn't all be
    > > > > > handled by NTPD anyway, no special kernel support desired.
    > > > > > Alessandro has opinions there. ;)
    > > > >
    > > > > My update_persistent_clock() on sparc64 is:
    > > > >
    > > > > int update_persistent_clock(struct timespec now)
    > > > > {
    > > > > struct rtc_device *rtc = rtc_class_open("rtc0");
    > > >
    > > > I'd be tempted to cache that ... notice how you never
    > > > close it, too. That will goof lots of refcounts...
    > >
    > > Well if I cache it then we'll hold it forever and that's not
    > > so nice right?
    > >
    > > I'm going to put the missing rtc_close() in there for now to
    > > fix the leak.
    > >
    > > I'm happy to cache this if you think it's warranted, but then
    > > this is like saying that the refcount doesn't matter :-)
    > >
    > > > =============== CUT ON THE DOTTED LINE ==================
    > > > Subject: ntp: let update_persistent_clock() sleep
    > > > From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
    > >
    > > I see, as Paul mentioned this is needed for stuff like RTCs
    > > behind I2C.
    > >
    > > This change isn't in Linus's tree yet.
    >
    > Should it be?
    >
    > Its current status is: stuck in -mm. I've sent it to Thomas a couple
    > of times marked "for 2.6.27?" and he might have applied it now (I'm a
    > few days behind, waiting for linux-next to start up again).

    This is something that you can attempt (again) to address next week along
    with other process issues...

    Maybe travel time/delay is also involved (for people other than Mr. Rothwell).


    > It was not included in Thomas's recent mainline pull request:
    >
    > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@tglx.de>
    > Subject: [GIT pull] timer updates for 2.6.27
    > Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 22:32:39 +0200 (CEST)

    --
    ~Randy


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-09-10 23:11    [W:0.034 / U:60.908 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site