Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:35:04 +0100 (CET) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |