Subject: Re: proposal for changes to todr interface
To: Perry E. Metzger <email@example.com>
From: Garrett D'Amore <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/06/2006 18:17:51
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore <email@example.com> writes:
>>> Isn't it better to always pass an adjusted time using rtc_offset
>>> in kern_todr.c as old i386 todr functions did?
>>> (since the default of rtc_offset is zero in param.c)
>> That's a good question. I was assuming that some ports want to use
>> rtc_offset or not depending on whether or not the port used local time
>> or not. Some ports seem to honor rtc_offset, whereas some don't.
> This is an "onion", to use the idiom that's been going on.
> I added rtc_offset years ago when I removed the last vestiges of the
> time zone handling from the kernel, in order to get rid of the ugly
> hack we were using to make dual booting friendly on the PC. At the
> time, all the todr infrastructure was MD, and I did the hack for the
> i386 and assumed that whatever other ports needed the thing would
> implement the right MD stuff too.
> Now that we have central MI TODR handling, rtc_offset should just be
> always done. There is no reason to have it optional or MD. If you
> don't want the clock offset from GMT, just don't set rtc_offset.
> So, just *always* honor it, as Izumi Tsutsui suggests.
That's what I've done in the "new" interfaces.
Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer
Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division,
General Dynamics C4 Systems
Phone: 951 325-2134 Fax: 951 325-2191