On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 11:20 -0700, John Stultz wrote: > On 06/18/2012 06:55 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] > >>> John, is that bug present in 3.2.y and 3.0.y, too? Any hints for > >>> fixing it? > >> It looks like incrementing the TAI offset was wrong even before > >> > >> 6b43ae8a ntp: Fix leap-second hrtimer livelock v3.4-rc1~44^2~9 > >> > >> The offset should change upon entering state OOP, so something like > >> the following (untested) patch should fix it for 3.2.9. > > [...] > > > > It looks like this patch just changes the offset reported by adjtimex() > > during an inserted second; is that right? > > Yep. It just makes sure the TAI offset is adjusted at the same point > that the leapsecond is inserted (as opposed to a second late). > > > > > Other than that, is 3.2.y likely to be OK? Is there a good way to test > > that in advance; does > > <http://codemonkey.org.uk/2012/06/15/testing-leap-code/> look > > reasonable? > Attached is a simple leap second test you can play with.
Thanks. That also detects inconsistency on some runs, but I don't see anything worse. So I don't intend to apply any of the ntp fixes to 3.2.y. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If more than one person is responsible for a bug, no one is at fault.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
