[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Bulk] Re: [patch 2.6.19-rc6 1/6] rtc class /proc/driver/rtc update
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:47:57 -0800
David Brownell <> wrote:

> > I wouldn't change that, the /proc interface to rtc is old
> > and should not be used anyhow. Here I'm trying to mimic
> > the behaviour of the original one.
> The "original" one never had such fields. Even the efirtc.c
> code (which originated those flags) didn't call them that;
> it used "Enabled" not "alrm_enabled", so at least this patch
> moves closer to that "original" behavior.


> > I don't know if there's any user space tool relying on this.
> There shouldn't be any code parsing /proc/driver/rtc ... if there
> is such stuff, it's already got so many variants to cope with that
> adding one that actually matches the rest of the system would be
> a net simplification.

> The whole RTC framework is still labeled "experimental", and
> AFAIK I'm the first person to audit the use of those flags.
> Until it's no longer experimental, I have a hard time thinking
> that backwards compatibility should prevent fixing such interface
> bugs ... interface bugs are normally in the "fix ASAP" category,
> since if you delay fixing them the costs grow exponentially.

given the experimental status, I'm inclined to remove the /proc
driver right now.

Any objection?


Best regards,

Alessandro Zummo,
Tower Technologies - Turin, Italy

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-22 21:39    [W:0.049 / U:11.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site