On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:53:59PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > On 07/10/2012 03:43 PM, John Stultz wrote: > >Over the weekend, Thomas got a chance to review the leap second fix > >in more detail and had a few additional changes he wanted to make > >to improve performance as well as style. > > > >So this iteration includes his modifications. > > > >Once merged, I'll be working to get the backports finished as quickly > >as I can and sent to -stable.
looking at the proposed 2.6.32.y stable patch at: http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/jstultz/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=18d208632bf17aed56c581b882868b2be44be71e;hp=6d224606bb8eec78027522d6dd5abfea8108c41a Is this the final version you are about to send to -stable? In 2.6.32 timekeeping_leap_insert() is not called from the timer interrupt, but from the leap_timer hrtimer. I think the new clock_was_set_timer will thus not be called by irq_exit() because TIMER_SOFTIRQ has not been raised. Unless TIMER_SOFTIRQ is raised, clock_was_set() will not be called until the next periodic timer interrupt, correct? Wouldn't the original schedule_work() approach work better for 2.6.32? Or do you plan backporting the most recent version to 2.6.32? Thanks, -- Jiri Bohac <jbo...@suse.cz> SUSE Labs, SUSE CZ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
