On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:47:57 -0800
David Brownell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I wouldn't change that, the /proc interface to rtc is old
> > and should not be used anyhow. Here I'm trying to mimic
> > the behaviour of the original one.
>
> The "original" one never had such fields. Even the efirtc.c
> code (which originated those flags) didn't call them that;
> it used "Enabled" not "alrm_enabled", so at least this patch
> moves closer to that "original" behavior.
[..]
> > I don't know if there's any user space tool relying on this.
>
> There shouldn't be any code parsing /proc/driver/rtc ... if there
> is such stuff, it's already got so many variants to cope with that
> adding one that actually matches the rest of the system would be
> a net simplification.
> The whole RTC framework is still labeled "experimental", and
> AFAIK I'm the first person to audit the use of those flags.
>
> Until it's no longer experimental, I have a hard time thinking
> that backwards compatibility should prevent fixing such interface
> bugs ... interface bugs are normally in the "fix ASAP" category,
> since if you delay fixing them the costs grow exponentially.
given the experimental status, I'm inclined to remove the /proc
driver right now.
Any objection?
--
Best regards,
Alessandro Zummo,
Tower Technologies - Turin, Italy
http://www.towertech.it
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
