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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8153.1126340565>