Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:56:42 +0100, Martin Burnicki wrote:
Now in 4.2.8 the leap second code has been reworked and cleaned up,
and a very quick look at the source code seems to indicate that this
might work again. At least there's code which passes the announcement
flag to the kernel, if kernel support is enabled.
I think I'll give it a try soon. I'd expect that a negative leap
second might work if an appropriate announcement is received from a
refclock or upstream NTP server, but it will be interesting to find
out if this works with a NIST-style leap second file where the TAI
offset decreases at a given date.
Hell - lots of code can't handle a positive leap second, so what hope
is there?
Should we abandon everything which can't easily be handled, or where
developers don't work thoroughly?
Right now, GPS System Time is the best solution. In ten years, I bet
the answer will be TAI.
Agreed.
And we might already start to think about how to get this right in mixed
environments, e.g. using the NTF's General timestamp API, or find a way
to determine if the kernel time is UTC, or TAI.
Martin
--
Martin Burnicki
Senior Software Engineer
MEINBERG Funkuhren GmbH & Co. KG
Email: martin.burni...@meinberg.de
Phone: +49 (0)5281 9309-14
Fax: +49 (0)5281 9309-30
Lange Wand 9, 31812 Bad Pyrmont, Germany
Amtsgericht Hannover 17HRA 100322
Geschäftsführer/Managing Directors: Günter Meinberg, Werner Meinberg,
Andre Hartmann, Heiko Gerstung
Web: http://www.meinberg.de
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
