Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:48:08 -0700 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: time_second vs. time_uptime Message-ID: <20050909214808.GA6021@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <200509091744.26505.jkim@FreeBSD.org> References: <200509091744.26505.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:44:24PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > 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? 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, uptime increases monotonically, but leap seconds and adjustments such as those made by ntpdate will make simple time values jump around. This bit me when I first did the interface epochs since absolute times are not necessarily unique. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIgMXXY6L6fI4GtQRAtQNAKCMX1XcuDcKAVttGi+93s6dzs9NtgCgtNhq AKlqajzYsIAwLnSa5kfv7tw= =ep7X -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050909214808.GA6021>