[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1340107067.6871.23.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:57:47 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -stable] ntp: Correct TAI offset during leap second
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 11:20 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 06:55 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> >>> John, is that bug present in 3.2.y and 3.0.y, too? Any hints for
> >>> fixing it?
> >> It looks like incrementing the TAI offset was wrong even before
> >>
> >> 6b43ae8a ntp: Fix leap-second hrtimer livelock v3.4-rc1~44^2~9
> >>
> >> The offset should change upon entering state OOP, so something like
> >> the following (untested) patch should fix it for 3.2.9.
> > [...]
> >
> > It looks like this patch just changes the offset reported by adjtimex()
> > during an inserted second; is that right?
>
> Yep. It just makes sure the TAI offset is adjusted at the same point
> that the leapsecond is inserted (as opposed to a second late).
>
> >
> > Other than that, is 3.2.y likely to be OK? Is there a good way to test
> > that in advance; does
> > <http://codemonkey.org.uk/2012/06/15/testing-leap-code/> look
> > reasonable?
> Attached is a simple leap second test you can play with.
Thanks. That also detects inconsistency on some runs, but I don't see
anything worse. So I don't intend to apply any of the ntp fixes to
3.2.y.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
If more than one person is responsible for a bug, no one is at fault.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists