On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:57:06PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> Recently an issue was reported that was difficult to detect except
>> by tweaking the adjtimex tick value, and noticing how quickly the
>> adjustment took to be made:
>>
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:57:06PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> Recently an issue was reported that was difficult to detect except
> by tweaking the adjtimex tick value, and noticing how quickly the
> adjustment took to be made:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/1/488
>
> Thus this patch
Recently an issue was reported that was difficult to detect except
by tweaking the adjtimex tick value, and noticing how quickly the
adjustment took to be made:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/1/488
Thus this patch introduces a new test which manipulates the adjtimex
tick value and validates
Recently an issue was reported that was difficult to detect except
by tweaking the adjtimex tick value, and noticing how quickly the
adjustment took to be made:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/1/488
Thus this patch introduces a new test which manipulates the adjtimex
tick value and validates
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:57:06PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> Recently an issue was reported that was difficult to detect except
> by tweaking the adjtimex tick value, and noticing how quickly the
> adjustment took to be made:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/1/488
>
> Thus this patch
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:57:06PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> Recently an issue was reported that was difficult to detect except
>> by tweaking the adjtimex tick value, and noticing how quickly the
>> adjustment took
6 matches
Mail list logo