On Feb 12, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Harlan Stenn wrote: > Warner Losh writes: >> >> On Feb 12, 2014, at 5:36 AM, Greg Hennessy wrote: >> >>> >>>>> Um, that is false. All linux kernels did not crash, in fact NONE of >>>>> mine did. >>>> >>>> "all" here was an overstatement, but the impact of the leap second >>>> should never be "your kernel crashes" even if your personal kernels >>>> didn't. >>> >>> You should refrain from making inaccurate claims, it damages your >>> credibility. >> >> It still doesn't detract from my point: leap seconds caused aberrant behavior >> in the linux kernel that everybody wants to nit-pick me on, but the nit-pick >> s don't detract from the point. The point is the aberrant behavior, rather th >> an the slight mischaracterizations of that. Geeze, no wonder no progress can >> be made, people are arguing over the wrong things. > > Bad handling and inadequate testing of leap seconds in those kernels > (and was some of it libc?) caused the aberrant behavior.
The linux kernel has been touted by some of its proponents as the most tested and verified kernel around. Some may quibble with this characterization, but if not the most, certainly one of the most. And even so, this problem with leap seconds managed to escape into released kernels. If that happened, here, what hope is there for other, less well tested systems. Warner _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
