On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: >> hwclock calls appear to block somewhere between 1 and 2 seconds when we have >> back-to-back calls. My theory (without looking at the code) is that hwclock >> has to synchronize to the 1 second intervals of the hardware clock, so it >> can sometimes take up to a second to complete. >> >> To get around this unpleasant behavior, we can background the calls at point >> X in the boot sequence, and then later at point Y in the script (when we >> absolutely need the clock actions to be complete), we wait on the >> subprocess. This allows the rest of the boot sequence, after the hwclock >> code block, to continue until the point where we wait on the subprocess. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <[email protected]> >> --- > > I discussed this patch series with Thomas a while back; I'd be happy > to answer questions on it. They have worked great on my Eee over the > last month.
These look good to me. Feel free to push them if no one else takes issue with it
