From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756896AbXJCCPm (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:15:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754949AbXJCCPf (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:15:35 -0400 Received: from smtp105.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([68.142.229.100]:37946 "HELO smtp105.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754820AbXJCCPe (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:15:34 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id; b=MkoWKBR4nAVT7auXATO5YdTji4CspC8L8aoC4uFgbG3R0F1AsJ1It1VbG+0Al4fAddIXPOAqGm5wvSLujnKCXXv5/ye2J6l3B5QlPWK7MkHf7av5KXh/pZUGdjPtJE5pIq9AM1LZmk5w/jM5IpvN0nD0PwMgWT97bfb4z/jX5os= ; X-YMail-OSG: iydYxmMVM1ns6Phj7b93sMGO_Wx5zCN3GkUudBpBTMaT_osajYFBitoYhH3NiLMC8J_Nqky6AQ-- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:15:36 -0700 From: David Brownell To: pavel@ucw.cz Subject: Re: RTC wakealarm write-only, still has 644 permissions Cc: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alessandro.zummo@towertech.it References: <20070920103225.GA4410@elf.ucw.cz> <20070920105002.GA4611@elf.ucw.cz> <200709212238.05130.david-b@pacbell.net> <20071002093641.GA11039@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> In-Reply-To: <20071002093641.GA11039@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20071003021537.208621F9CA8@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > > root@amd:/sys/class/rtc/rtc0# cat wakealarm > > > > root@amd:/sys/class/rtc/rtc0# echo 132719 > wakealarm > > > > At which point I'd expect > > > > # echo $? > > > > would indicate the write failed. That's a LONG time in the > > past (January 2, 1970), so that setting would be rejected. > > echo $? says 0 here :-(. I stand corrected. What it should do -- and does -- in that case involves disabling the alarm, then succeeding.