On 07/12/2012 03:44 AM, Jan Ceuleers wrote: > On 07/11/2012 06:47 PM, John Stultz wrote: >> I'll see if my worry is unfounded, but it might be a bit too clever for rare >> events. > > Full ACK. > > There is an unfortunate history of critical-to-moderately-serious bugs in > the leap second handling, so I submit that what is needed is a simple, > obviously-correct and robust mechanism. Robust statically, but also in the > face of code churn because these code paths are exercised so rarely out in > the wild. > > Just my opinion, FWIW. >
Ditto - and it's not just FWIW. John (and everyone else), I think we're over-thinking this. Would it be nice to get an extremely elegant solution to this? Yeah ... it would. But the reality is that we're not going to get there and IMO we're making things too complex for this little piece of code. Acked-by: Prarit Bhargava <[email protected]> IMO, this is the simplest way to move forward with this code. P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
