Re: time_second vs. time_uptime

From: Brooks Davis (brooks_at_one-eyed-alien.net)
Date: 09/09/05

  • Next message: Jung-uk Kim: "Re: time_second vs. time_uptime" 
    Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:48:08 -0700
To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@freebsd.org>

    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

  • Next message: Jung-uk Kim: "Re: time_second vs. time_uptime"

    Relevant Pages