John Stultz writes:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> If we happen to receive interrupts during hv_set_host_time() execution
>> our adjustments may get inaccurate. Make the whole function atomic.
>> Unfortunately, we can's call do_settimeofday64() with interrupts
>> di
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> If we happen to receive interrupts during hv_set_host_time() execution
> our adjustments may get inaccurate. Make the whole function atomic.
> Unfortunately, we can's call do_settimeofday64() with interrupts
> disabled as some cross-CPU wor
On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 13:35:58 +0100
Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> I was thinking about it but to me what do_adjtimex() does looks too
> low-level for drivers (e.g. calling write_seqcount_begin(),
> __timekeeping_set_tai_offset(), tk_update_leap_state()). To me (again, I
> probably know not that much a
Stephen Hemminger writes:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 18:24:39 +0100
> Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>
>> If we happen to receive interrupts during hv_set_host_time() execution
>> our adjustments may get inaccurate. Make the whole function atomic.
>> Unfortunately, we can's call do_settimeofday64() with int
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 18:24:39 +0100
Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> If we happen to receive interrupts during hv_set_host_time() execution
> our adjustments may get inaccurate. Make the whole function atomic.
> Unfortunately, we can's call do_settimeofday64() with interrupts
> disabled as some cross-CPU
5 matches
Mail list logo
