From: linux@horizon.com
To: linux@horizon.com, tytso@mit.edu
Cc: johnstul@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
theotso@us.ibm.com, zippel@linux-m68k.org
Subject: Re: Linux time code
Date: 29 Aug 2006 11:18:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060829151856.10441.qmail@science.horizon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060829131533.GC31760@thunk.org>
>> The Posix-mandated behaviour *requires* diverging from UTC for some
>> time period around the leap second. All you can do is decide how
>> to schedule the divergence.
> POSIX mandates this for gettimeofday() and CLOCK_REALTIME.
> However, a conforming implementation, could (either in userspace or in
> the kernel) provide access to other time bases, include TAI or the
> proposed UTS time scales.
The suggestion is to use UTS to implement CLOCK_REALTIME and
gettimeofday().
Since CLOCK_REALTIME has no specified accuracy bounds, it's a legal
realization, but UTS provides defined behavior when you have better time
sync than the 1s uncertainty inherent in the POSIX spec.
time() is more interesting, since it's so quantized already. Is it better
to have a 2-second second, or to keep it in sync with gettimeofday()
and have 1000 1.001-second seconds?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-29 15:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-23 6:25 linux
2006-08-23 18:29 ` john stultz
2006-08-24 2:35 ` linux
2006-08-28 11:39 ` Roman Zippel
2006-08-28 22:36 ` john stultz
2006-08-29 3:28 ` linux
2006-08-29 13:15 ` Theodore Tso
2006-08-29 15:18 ` linux [this message]
2006-08-29 19:23 ` john stultz
2006-08-29 14:43 ` Roman Zippel
2006-08-26 0:17 ` linux
2006-08-28 22:41 ` john stultz
2006-08-26 3:46 ` linux
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-08-16 12:26 Ulrich Windl
2006-08-16 12:36 ` Oleg Verych
2006-08-16 15:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-08-16 15:12 ` Oleg Verych
2006-08-16 19:53 ` john stultz
2006-08-17 7:20 ` Ulrich Windl
2006-08-17 19:15 ` john stultz
2006-08-17 11:43 ` Roman Zippel
2006-08-17 21:58 ` john stultz
2006-08-17 22:11 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-08-17 22:32 ` john stultz
2006-08-17 22:50 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-08-17 23:02 ` john stultz
2006-08-20 17:14 ` Roman Zippel
2006-08-20 17:10 ` Roman Zippel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060829151856.10441.qmail@science.horizon.com \
--to=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=theotso@us.ibm.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®