[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Bug: Status/Summary of slashdot leap-second crash on new years 2008-2009
    Nick Andrew wrote:
    > I can sympathise with the opinion that linux should be able to accurately
    > distinguish xx:59:60 when a leap second is added (or the missing :59 when
    > one is subtracted) but not at the expense of making a day which is not
    > 86400 seconds long.

    Some days are not 86400 seconds long. That's a fact and regardless of
    how inconvenient it is, we have to live with it. Some years don't have
    365 days; some months don't have 30 days; some Februaries don' have 28
    days; and now, some days don't have 86400 seconds. What's the point in
    fighting this?

    If you want to know the days between two times, dividing by 86400
    doesn't cut it.

    > Arguably the kernel's responsibility should be to keep track of the
    > most fundamental representation of time possible for a machine (that's
    > probably TAI) and it is a userspace responsibility to map from that
    > value to other time standards including UTC, using control files
    > which are updated as leap seconds are declared.

    We have this already; zoneinfo

    > Just so long as the
    > existing behaviour of time() which doesn't recognise leap seconds
    > is preserved.

    I haven't been able to find this Annex B that Alan talked of, so I can
    only go by the man page, which states, simply and explicitly, that
    time() returns seconds since Epoch, and also that Epoch is start of
    January 1 1970. To my mind, time *does* recognise leap seconds.

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-06 03:03    [W:0.020 / U:4.452 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site