Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:58:32 -0700 | From | John Stultz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/6] Fix for leapsecond caused hrtimer/futex issue (updated) |
| |
On 07/12/2012 03:43 PM, Jiri Bohac wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:53:59PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: >> On 07/10/2012 03:43 PM, John Stultz wrote: >>> Over the weekend, Thomas got a chance to review the leap second fix >>> in more detail and had a few additional changes he wanted to make >>> to improve performance as well as style. >>> >>> So this iteration includes his modifications. >>> >>> Once merged, I'll be working to get the backports finished as quickly >>> as I can and sent to -stable. > looking at the proposed 2.6.32.y stable patch at: > http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/jstultz/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=18d208632bf17aed56c581b882868b2be44be71e;hp=6d224606bb8eec78027522d6dd5abfea8108c41a > Is this the final version you are about to send to -stable? No, this isn't what I'm sending to -stable. That was my backport that was done was prior to merging Thomas' modifications from over the weekend. Having, so far, done this backporting 3 times or so, I figured I'd just wait until something got committed upstream before trying to backport it again. :)
> In 2.6.32 timekeeping_leap_insert() is not called from the timer > interrupt, but from the leap_timer hrtimer. > > I think the new clock_was_set_timer will thus not be called by > irq_exit() because TIMER_SOFTIRQ has not been raised. Unless > TIMER_SOFTIRQ is raised, clock_was_set() will not be called until > the next periodic timer interrupt, correct? > > Wouldn't the original schedule_work() approach work better for > 2.6.32? > > Or do you plan backporting the most recent version to 2.6.32?
I'll be backporting & testing the most recent version once it is committed upstream.
thanks -john
| |