* Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm thinking about moving the leap second handling to a timer, with the
> > new timer system it would be easy to set a timer for e.g. 23:59.59 and
> > then set the time. This way it would be gone from the common path and it
> > wouldn't matter that much anymore whether it's used or not.
>
> Will the timer solution guarantee consistent and exact updates?
it would still be dependent on system-load situations. It's an
interesting idea to use a timer for that, but there is no strict
synchronization between "get time of day" and "timer execution", so any
timer-based leap-second handling would be fundamentally asynchronous. I
dont think we want that, leap second handling should be a synchronous
property of 'time'.
i think the very first step should be the cleanups i did to the NTP
portions of timer.c. That made all the code (including leap second
handling) more readable. I think a portion of the inner desire to
rewrite the NTP code comes from the current spaghetti that accumulated
over the years.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
