Re: [RFC][PATCH] timers: Make alarmtimer depend on CONFIG_RTC_CLASS

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 23:38 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-05-29 at 12:48 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > The alarmtimer interface makes IMHO only sense when a RTC device
> > is available.
> > On systems with !CONFIG_RTC_CLASS (like UML) the warning
> > "Kernel not built with RTC support, ALARM timers will not wake from suspend"
> > is annoying.
> 
> Yea. 
> 
> The tradeoff with this patch is that applications that use
> CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM or CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM will then get -EINVAL.
> 
> I'm mixed here, since we probably want to communicate to the application
> that the alarm timers aren't going to wake us up, but also I suspect
> most applications won't handle the -EINVAL properly, so I had allowed
> for the clockids to still work as long as we didn't suspend.
> 
> I'm leaning more towards just returning EINVAL as you suggest, since
> really the functionality isn't there. But I'm thinking possibly doing so
> if no RTCs are detected at runtime (rather then using all the ifdefs you
> do).
> 
> Thoughts from anyone else?

Wouldn't -ENOTSUPP be a better return value than -EINVAL? But yeah, I
think simply returning an error is fine, if apps don't check for that,
they're broken, simple as that, we can't possibly avoid all userspace
problems by adding more kernel code.
--
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/