Re: [PATCH 0/6] Fix for leapsecond caused hrtimer/futex issue (updated)

[Jiri Bohac <jbohac@suse.cz>]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:53:59PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 07/10/2012 03:43 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> >Over the weekend, Thomas got a chance to review the leap second fix
> >in more detail and had a few additional changes he wanted to make
> >to improve performance as well as style.
> >
> >So this iteration includes his modifications.
> >
> >Once merged, I'll be working to get the backports finished as quickly
> >as I can and sent to -stable.

looking at the proposed 2.6.32.y stable patch at:
http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/jstultz/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=18d208632bf17aed56c581b882868b2be44be71e;hp=6d224606bb8eec78027522d6dd5abfea8108c41a
Is this the final version you are about to send to -stable?

In 2.6.32 timekeeping_leap_insert() is not called from the timer
interrupt, but from the leap_timer hrtimer.

I think the new clock_was_set_timer will thus not be called by
irq_exit() because TIMER_SOFTIRQ has not been raised. Unless
TIMER_SOFTIRQ is raised, clock_was_set() will not be called until
the next periodic timer interrupt, correct?

Wouldn't the original schedule_work() approach work better for
2.6.32?

Or do you plan backporting the most recent version to 2.6.32?

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Bohac <jbohac@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, SUSE CZ