[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimmTzH8+fSYmbajqZ+hU5Ps-UZaTp_1TYzjHB6P@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:27:58 +0900
From: "Kuwahara,T." <6vvetjsrt26xsrzlh1z0zn4d2grdah@...il.com>
To: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...ux.it>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 1/8] ntp: add ADJ_SETOFFSET mode bit
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:25 AM, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com> wrote:
> I don't see why that would be better then adding a
> clear new mode flag?
In short, time step is a special case of time slew. Those are the same,
only different in one parameter, as is shown in my previous post.
That's why I said there's no need for adding a new mode.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists