Re: [PATCH 2/13] Time: Reduced NTP Rework (part 2)

[Roman Zippel]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/