Hi,
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Ingo Molnar 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.
Interrupt-load, actually.
> 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'm not really sure what you're talking about. Could you please elaborate
on "fundamentally asynchronous" and "synchronous property of 'time'"?
bye, Roman
-
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]
