lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/13] Time: Reduced NTP Rework (part 2)
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 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-06 11:37    [W:0.045 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site