On 07/10/2012 04:00 PM, 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.
>>
>
> Once again, here's the test case I've been using to stress test 
> leapsecond insertion/deletion (the deletion testing is new since last 
> round).

Prarit noticed a small bug with the test case. We're not initializing 
the timespec tv_nsec value before sleeping, so in some cases 
clock_nanosleep will return -EINVAL.

This version fixes this and cleans up some of the timespec/timeval usage.

thanks
-john