On 21/10/2019 10:20:08-0700, Brian Norris wrote: > Hi Alexandre! > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:11 AM Alexandre Belloni > <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 21/05/2018 09:42:22-0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > > __rtc_read_time() can fail (e.g., if the RTC uses an unreliable medium). > > > When it does, we don't report the error, but instead calculate a > > > 1-second alarm based on the potentially-garbage 'tm' (in practice, > > > __rtc_read_time() zeroes out the time first, so it's likely to still be > > > all 0). > > > > > > Let's propagate the error instead. > > > > > > > I submitted > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rtc/20191021155631.3342-2-alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > > to solve this after looking at all the implication checking the return > > value of __rtc_read_time had. > > Only about a year and a half late, nice! I know, right? :) The fact is that this is not a common issue or at least, I didn't have any report that this was causing real problems in the field. So it ended up being one of the longest standing patch in patchwork... >Fortunately we have a decent > (albeit time-consuming) process for rebasing our downstream patches in > Chrome OS kernels... > Do you need that patch backported to LTS kernels? -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
