From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Sep 10 08:22:48 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 392A516A41F;
	Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:22:48 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC45943D45;
	Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:22:47 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03946BC93;
	Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:22:46 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:44:24 EDT."
	<200509091744.26505.jkim@FreeBSD.org> 
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:22:45 +0200
Message-ID: <8153.1126340565@phk.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@phk.freebsd.dk
Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: time_second vs. time_uptime 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:22:48 -0000

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.