time_second vs. time_uptime
From: Jung-uk Kim (jkim_at_FreeBSD.org)
Date: 09/09/05
- Previous message: Jung-uk Kim: "Re: Bigger boot block size?"
- Next in thread: Brooks Davis: "Re: time_second vs. time_uptime"
- Reply: Brooks Davis: "Re: time_second vs. time_uptime"
- Reply: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: time_second vs. time_uptime"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:44:24 -0400
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. ;-)
Thanks,
Jung-uk Kim
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Jung-uk Kim: "Re: Bigger boot block size?"
- Next in thread: Brooks Davis: "Re: time_second vs. time_uptime"
- Reply: Brooks Davis: "Re: time_second vs. time_uptime"
- Reply: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: time_second vs. time_uptime"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|