Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:27:08 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/13] Time: Reduced NTP Rework (part 2) |
| |
* Ulrich Windl <ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |