Followup to: <98090822315400.00819@soda>
By author: Andrej Presern <[email protected]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Have you considered simply not scheduling any processes for one second and
> adjusting the time accordingly? (if one second chunk is too big, you can do it
> in several steps)
>
> Andrej
>
The way xntp deals with leap seconds is it lets the epoch
float... i.e. it holds time_t to the same value for two seconds. One
proposal (which I like) was to compensate for this by allowing the
microsecond or nanosecond fields or struct timeval & co to advance to
1,999,999 ?s or 1,999,999,999 ns in the case of such events. The neat
thing is that the latter number fits very nicely in a 32-bit integer
even if someone (mis-) interprets it as signed.
-hpa
--
PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74
See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key
I am Bah?'? -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/
"To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Les Mis?rables
On Wed, Sep 09, 1998 at 12:59:47AM +0000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> The way xntp deals with leap seconds is it lets the epoch float...
> i.e. it holds time_t to the same value for two seconds.
Cool... so 1970 becomes even longer ago that I would have assumed
then?
-cw