On 07/12/2012 03:43 PM, Jiri Bohac wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:53:59PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 07/10/2012 03:43 PM, John Stultz wrote:
Over the weekend, Thomas got a chance to review the leap second fix
in more detail and had a few additional changes he wanted to make
to improve performance as well as style.
So this iteration includes his modifications.
Once merged, I'll be working to get the backports finished as quickly
as I can and sent to -stable.
looking at the proposed 2.6.32.y stable patch at:
http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/jstultz/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=18d208632bf17aed56c581b882868b2be44be71e;hp=6d224606bb8eec78027522d6dd5abfea8108c41a
Is this the final version you are about to send to -stable?
No, this isn't what I'm sending to -stable. That was my backport that
was done was prior to merging Thomas' modifications from over the
weekend. Having, so far, done this backporting 3 times or so, I figured
I'd just wait until something got committed upstream before trying to
backport it again. :)
In 2.6.32 timekeeping_leap_insert() is not called from the timer
interrupt, but from the leap_timer hrtimer.
I think the new clock_was_set_timer will thus not be called by
irq_exit() because TIMER_SOFTIRQ has not been raised. Unless
TIMER_SOFTIRQ is raised, clock_was_set() will not be called until
the next periodic timer interrupt, correct?
Wouldn't the original schedule_work() approach work better for
2.6.32?
Or do you plan backporting the most recent version to 2.6.32?
I'll be backporting & testing the most recent version once it is
committed upstream.
thanks
-john
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
