On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 18:28 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:Yep. That's a long-standing issue, due to the leap-second processing happening at tick time (further complicated since to handle NOHZ, we accumulate in fixed-tick intervals that don't exactly line up with the interrupt edge), so we'll usually get one to two ticks into the second before we apply the leap second.On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:55:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:I was intending to change the clock too...On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 19:34 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:Right, nothing really terrible will happen. The worst that I canThe offset should change upon entering state OOP, so something like[...]
the following (untested) patch should fix it for 3.2.9.
It looks like this patch just changes the offset reported by adjtimex()
during an inserted second; is that right?
imagine is that ntpd will set the new TAI offset during OOP, and then
the kernel will add one to it, resulting in the TAI offset being off
by one.
But I really doubt any software makes use of this information.
Other than that, is 3.2.y likely to be OK? Is there a good way to testWell, if you want to wait all night then that is one way to do it.
that in advance; does
<http://codemonkey.org.uk/2012/06/15/testing-leap-code/> look
reasonable?
Here is a little test program I have been using:Thanks, that runs without incident but does show the incorrect offset
https://github.com/richardcochran/leap
during OOP.