Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:37:24 +0100 | From | Alessandro Zummo <> | Subject | Re: [Bulk] Re: [patch 2.6.19-rc6 1/6] rtc class /proc/driver/rtc update |
| |
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:47:57 -0800 David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |