Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:22:45 +0200
From:      "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
To:        Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: time_second vs. time_uptime 
Message-ID:  <8153.1126340565@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:44:24 EDT." <200509091744.26505.jkim@FreeBSD.org> 

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
In message <200509091744.26505.jkim@FreeBSD.org>, Jung-uk Kim writes:
>If I read the source correctly, time_second can go backwards or 
>forwards when there is a leap second but time_uptime cannot.  Am I 
>right?

Correct.

>If my assumption is right, it seems we have some misuses in 
>kernel, e. g., sched_sync() in sys/kern/vfs_subr.c.  It may not be 
>critical but it worries me a little because a leap second is 
>scheduled to occur at the end of this year. ;-)

Yes, almost nothing should use time_second in the kernel.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8153.1126340565>