Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 04/10] RTC: Cleanuprtc_class_ops->read_alarm()

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:27:12PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, john stultz wrote:

> > We can preserve what hardware state we can at boot, but applications
> > should not expect alarms set multiple reboot cycles ago to be valid.
> > After all, other applications might have jumped in and grabbed the rtc
> > device and set it to something else before the application was able to.
> > Or a user might change the value from something like a bios menu.

> Ack. Anyhting which relies on such a feature is broken by
> definition. A sane requirement is that the last set earliest alarm
> survives, but anything else is just beyond the scope of a sane
> interface.

Right, my point is that it doesn't strike me as obvious that we should
be supporting multiple alarms on an RTC in kernel space in the first
place (unless someone comes up with hardware which does so).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/