On Wed, 07 May 2008 09:24:15 +0100 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ooh, shiny -- you saved me the trouble of doing this (and hopefully also > the trouble of looking through it to check whether all the callers of > read_persistent_clock() can sleep, etc.?) I knew you would have liked that patch :) > One thing I was going to do in rtc_update_persistent_clock() was make it > use mutex_trylock() for grabbing rtc->lock. We go to great lengths to > make sure we're updating the clock at the correct time -- we don't want > to be doing things which delay the update. So we should probably just > use mutex_trylock() and abort the update (this time) if it fails. agreable. > I was also thinking of holding the RTC_HCTOSYS device open all the time, > too. If it's a problem that you then couldn't unload the module, perhaps > a sysfs interface to set/change/clear which device is used for this? mm.. let's keep it easy. the chances the rtc is in use are usually real low. -- Best regards, Alessandro Zummo, Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy http://www.towertech.it
