| Message ID | 1322555735-32163-1-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
Just a ping to RTC maintainers. Any comments on the patch? can it go in? On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 10:35 +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > This patch moves kernel specific header includes into the kernel #ifdef-ed > section, thus allowing userspace to include this header directly. > > Cc: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it> > Cc: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com> > --- > include/linux/mc146818rtc.h | 3 +-- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/mc146818rtc.h b/include/linux/mc146818rtc.h > index 2f4e957..49d93ff 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mc146818rtc.h > +++ b/include/linux/mc146818rtc.h > @@ -11,11 +11,10 @@ > #ifndef _MC146818RTC_H > #define _MC146818RTC_H > > +#ifdef __KERNEL__ > #include <asm/io.h> > #include <linux/rtc.h> /* get the user-level API */ > #include <asm/mc146818rtc.h> /* register access macros */ > - > -#ifdef __KERNEL__ > #include <linux/spinlock.h> /* spinlock_t */ > extern spinlock_t rtc_lock; /* serialize CMOS RAM access */ >
On 10:56 Wed 14 Dec , Sasha Levin wrote:
> Just a ping to RTC maintainers. Any comments on the patch? can it go in?
why do you need such ocde in the userspace?
Best Regards,
J.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 06:42:51PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 10:56 Wed 14 Dec , Sasha Levin wrote: > > Just a ping to RTC maintainers. Any comments on the patch? can it go in? > > why do you need such ocde in the userspace? > See patch 2/3 in this series. We use this constants in kvmtool, so it's preferred to not duplicate code if possible. Cyrill
On 21:55 Wed 14 Dec , Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 06:42:51PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On 10:56 Wed 14 Dec , Sasha Levin wrote: > > > Just a ping to RTC maintainers. Any comments on the patch? can it go in? > > > > why do you need such ocde in the userspace? > > > > See patch 2/3 in this series. We use this constants in kvmtool, so it's > preferred to not duplicate code if possible. why do you need it? Best Regards, J.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 01:10:08PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > Just a ping to RTC maintainers. Any comments on the patch? can it go in? > > > > > > why do you need such ocde in the userspace? > > > > See patch 2/3 in this series. We use this constants in kvmtool, so it's > > preferred to not duplicate code if possible. > > why do you need it? > Already replied in previous mail. Cyrill
> On 21:55 Wed 14 Dec , Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 06:42:51PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >>> On 10:56 Wed 14 Dec , Sasha Levin wrote: >>>> Just a ping to RTC maintainers. Any comments on the patch? can it go in? >>> >>> why do you need such ocde in the userspace? >> >> See patch 2/3 in this series. We use this constants in kvmtool, so it's >> preferred to not duplicate code if possible. On Sun, 18 Dec 2011, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > why do you need it? It's for RTC emulation code in the KVM tool. For the patch: Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org> Given that the RTC maintainers are extremely unresponsive, I'm CC'ing Andrew too. Pekka
On 16:42 Sun 18 Dec , Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 01:10:08PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > > Just a ping to RTC maintainers. Any comments on the patch? can it go in? > > > > > > > > why do you need such ocde in the userspace? > > > > > > See patch 2/3 in this series. We use this constants in kvmtool, so it's > > > preferred to not duplicate code if possible. > > > > why do you need it? > > > > Already replied in previous mail. still not clear why you do not use the RTC API sorry this need to be more clear Best Regards, J.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 03:27:39PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > Already replied in previous mail. > > still not clear why you do not use the RTC API > sorry this need to be more clear > Jean, I might be missing somethig, which API you mean? Since we emulate RTC functions we need those constants in user-space app so having them just in some common header (in this case -- kernel header) would be pretty convenient -- we would simply grab them and would not duplicate code (by having our own header with the same constants). Sounds good? Cyrill
diff --git a/include/linux/mc146818rtc.h b/include/linux/mc146818rtc.h index 2f4e957..49d93ff 100644 --- a/include/linux/mc146818rtc.h +++ b/include/linux/mc146818rtc.h @@ -11,11 +11,10 @@ #ifndef _MC146818RTC_H #define _MC146818RTC_H +#ifdef __KERNEL__ #include <asm/io.h> #include <linux/rtc.h> /* get the user-level API */ #include <asm/mc146818rtc.h> /* register access macros */ - -#ifdef __KERNEL__ #include <linux/spinlock.h> /* spinlock_t */ extern spinlock_t rtc_lock; /* serialize CMOS RAM access */
This patch moves kernel specific header includes into the kernel #ifdef-ed section, thus allowing userspace to include this header directly. Cc: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it> Cc: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com> --- include/linux/mc146818rtc.h | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)