On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:52:18 +0100 Nix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3 Jun 2008, Daniel Hazelton said: > > > On Tuesday 03 June 2008 03:32:11 pm Andrew Morton wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:02:35 -0400 > >> > >> Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Protection against the host's time going backwards - keep track of the > >> > time at the last tick and if it's greater than the current time, keep > >> > time stopped until the host catches up. > >> > >> Strange. What would cause the host's time (or at least UML's perception > >> of it) to go backwards? > > > > A wild guess would be that the UML process is running "fast" at some point > > and > > its expectation of the host's time is skewed forward because of that. > > Quite so. Simply running ntp on the host (in slew-only mode, no less!) > can cause this. > > > Another possibility is that the hosts clock got reset between the times UML > > has checked it and the correction was a negative one. > > That too. >
So if I change the host's time by an hour, the time will not advance at all on the guest for the next hour? Sounds suboptimal :) I suppose the guest should be running an ntp client synced to something sane anyway? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
