On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
wrote:
>
>
> Il 01/06/2015 18:42, Prarit Bhargava ha scritto:
>> Daniel, did you disable chronyd/ntpd? I've seen both failures if I leave
>> chronyd running.
>>
>> P.
>
> Prarit, John, that is it, chronyd was running.
I reproduced this w
Il 01/06/2015 18:42, Prarit Bhargava ha scritto:
> Daniel, did you disable chronyd/ntpd? I've seen both failures if I leave
> chronyd running.
>
> P.
Prarit, John, that is it, chronyd was running.
- Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body
On 06/01/2015 04:18 PM, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>
>
> Il 29/05/2015 17:24, John Stultz ha scritto:
>> Thus this patch series tries to address this isssue, including
>> extending the leap-a-day test to catch this problem, as well
>> as other relevant fixups I found while working on the c
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
wrote:
>
>
> Il 29/05/2015 17:24, John Stultz ha scritto:
>> Thus this patch series tries to address this isssue, including
>> extending the leap-a-day test to catch this problem, as well
>> as other relevant fixups I found while working o
Il 29/05/2015 17:24, John Stultz ha scritto:
> Thus this patch series tries to address this isssue, including
> extending the leap-a-day test to catch this problem, as well
> as other relevant fixups I found while working on the code.
>
> This series has only had limited testing, so I wanted to
On 06/01/2015 01:02 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>
>> John, native testing went well across many 32-bit and 64-bit AMD and Intel
>> boxes. However, virtual (specifically KVM) guests failed with some sort of
>> corruption:
>>
>> [ 1546.038479]
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
>
> On 05/29/2015 04:24 PM, John Stultz wrote:
>> As Prarit reported here:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/27/458
>>
>> Since the leapsecond is applied at timer tick time, and not
>> the actual second edge, ABS_TIME CLOCK_REALTIME timers set
On 05/29/2015 04:24 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> As Prarit reported here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/27/458
>
> Since the leapsecond is applied at timer tick time, and not
> the actual second edge, ABS_TIME CLOCK_REALTIME timers set for
> right after the leapsecond could fire a second early, sin
On 05/29/2015 04:24 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> As Prarit reported here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/27/458
>
> Since the leapsecond is applied at timer tick time, and not
> the actual second edge, ABS_TIME CLOCK_REALTIME timers set for
> right after the leapsecond could fire a second early, sin
As Prarit reported here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/27/458
Since the leapsecond is applied at timer tick time, and not
the actual second edge, ABS_TIME CLOCK_REALTIME timers set for
right after the leapsecond could fire a second early, since
some timers may be expired before we trigger the timek
10 matches
Mail list logo
