On June 30, we were running some suspend/resume cycles with an
alarm time set through /proc/acpi/alarm. We discovered the next morning
that all of the boxes were suspended. Investigation showed that they
all had an alarm set for June 31.. :)
It turns out the /proc/acpi/alarm code assumes 31 days for all months.
The attached patch does the correct math. I know this is a deprecated
interface, but I figure that as long as the code is living in Linus's
tree, it should be correct.
Jordan
--
Jordan Crouse
Systems Software Development Engineer
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
[PATCH] ACPI: Make sure that the alarm math is correct
From: Jordan Crouse <jordan.crouse@xxxxxxx>
The current /proc/acpi/alarm math assumes that every month has 31 days.
This patch figures out the correct number of days in the month.
Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jordan.crouse@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c
index 4ebbba2..19c150b 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c
@@ -283,10 +283,32 @@ acpi_system_write_alarm(struct file *file,
day += hr/24;
hr = hr%24;
}
- if (day > 31) {
- mo += day/32;
- day = day%32;
+
+ while(1) {
+ int tmo = mo % 13;
+ int dinmo;
+
+ if (tmo == 2) {
+ if (((yr % 4 == 0) && (yr % 100 != 0)) ||
+ (yr % 400 == 0))
+ dinmo=29;
+ else
+ dinmo=28;
+ }
+ else if (tmo == 1 || tmo == 3 || tmo == 5 ||
+ tmo == 7 || tmo == 8 || tmo == 10 ||
+ tmo == 12)
+ dinmo=31;
+ else
+ dinmo=30;
+
+ if (day <= dinmo)
+ break;
+
+ mo += 1;
+ day -= dinmo;
}
+
if (mo > 12) {
yr += mo/13;
mo = mo%13;
