Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752672AbZAFCAS (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2009 21:00:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751321AbZAFCAF (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2009 21:00:05 -0500 Received: from hawking.rebel.net.au ([203.20.69.83]:43081 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751293AbZAFCAE (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2009 21:00:04 -0500 Message-ID: <4962BB13.7060304@davidnewall.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:29:47 +1030 From: David Newall User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Andrew CC: Linas Vepstas , david@lang.hm, Kyle Moffett , Ben Goodger , Robert Hancock , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Jeffrey J. Kosowsky" , MentalMooMan , Travis Crump , burdell@iruntheinter.net Subject: Re: Bug: Status/Summary of slashdot leap-second crash on new years 2008-2009 References: <495F0672.6020708@davidnewall.com> <8752a8760901022237r75d408b3i74c703c8ac2d4597@mail.gmail.com> <496076A9.7030907@davidnewall.com> <4960897D.5030603@davidnewall.com> <4961432A.80509@davidnewall.com> <49614835.7000505@davidnewall.com> <3ae3aa420901042148o1c96985dube8e03085c997a07@mail.gmail.com> <20090105143335.GC18055@mail.local.tull.net> In-Reply-To: <20090105143335.GC18055@mail.local.tull.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1643 Lines: 38 Nick Andrew wrote: > I can sympathise with the opinion that linux should be able to accurately > distinguish xx:59:60 when a leap second is added (or the missing :59 when > one is subtracted) but not at the expense of making a day which is not > 86400 seconds long. > Some days are not 86400 seconds long. That's a fact and regardless of how inconvenient it is, we have to live with it. Some years don't have 365 days; some months don't have 30 days; some Februaries don' have 28 days; and now, some days don't have 86400 seconds. What's the point in fighting this? If you want to know the days between two times, dividing by 86400 doesn't cut it. > Arguably the kernel's responsibility should be to keep track of the > most fundamental representation of time possible for a machine (that's > probably TAI) and it is a userspace responsibility to map from that > value to other time standards including UTC, using control files > which are updated as leap seconds are declared. We have this already; zoneinfo > Just so long as the > existing behaviour of time() which doesn't recognise leap seconds > is preserved. I haven't been able to find this Annex B that Alan talked of, so I can only go by the man page, which states, simply and explicitly, that time() returns seconds since Epoch, and also that Epoch is start of January 1 1970. To my mind, time *does* recognise leap seconds. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/