On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:17:01AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > This is something of an aside, but I'd be really interested in knowing > what it's needed for. A number of folks go around asserting that > CLOCK_MONOTONIC is not really monotonic on Linux, but according to the > documentation it is monotonic and the only thing non-"raw" about it is > that it can run slightly faster or slower when ntpd smoothly adjusts > for clock error. In particular, it ignores discontinuous clock > changes. If there's a bug and it sometimes is discontinuous, my > feeling is that the CLOCK_MONOTONIC constant should just be remapped > to CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW rather than leaving the standard clock broken > and forcing applications to use a nonstandard one...
I was considering this clock because of the weird behaviour I observed with CLOCK_MONOTONIC. But this is probably caused by a bug fixed in the kernel (commit 8aa3149405e33cec4f866cfe7f92c2b40d259613). Your description of the difference between the two clocks is right, and it's not what my problem is about, so I can't answer you as to why the _RAW clock is needed for, sorry. -- Richard Braun _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc