On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> This makes sense. Changing order in timekeeping_init(void) should take care of
> this:
>
> Change to:
>
> void __init timekeeping_init(void)
> {
> /*
> * We must determine boot timestamp before getting current
> * persistent clock value, because implementation of
> * read_boot_clock64() might also call the persistent
> * clock, and a leap second may occur.
> */
>
> read_boot_clock64(&boot);
> ...
> read_persistent_clock64(&now);
No. That's the same crap just the other way round.
s390 can do that, because the boot timestamp is correlated with the
persistent clock. Your's not so much.
Thanks,
tglx
