[LEAPSECS] happy anniversary pips
stenn at ntp.org
Wed Feb 12 15:50:14 EST 2014
Warner Losh writes:
> On Feb 12, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Harlan Stenn wrote:
>> Warner Losh writes:
>>> On Feb 12, 2014, at 5:36 AM, Greg Hennessy wrote:
>>>>>> Um, that is false. All linux kernels did not crash, in fact NONE of
>>>>>> mine did.
>>>>> "all" here was an overstatement, but the impact of the leap second
>>>>> should never be "your kernel crashes" even if your personal kernels
>>>> You should refrain from making inaccurate claims, it damages your
>>> It still doesn't detract from my point: leap seconds caused aberrant
>>> behavior in the linux kernel that everybody wants to nit-pick me on,
>>> but the nit-picks don't detract from the point. The point is the
>>> aberrant behavior, rather than the slight mischaracterizations of
>>> that. Geeze, no wonder no progress can be made, people are arguing
>>> over the wrong things.
>> Bad handling and inadequate testing of leap seconds in those kernels
>> (and was some of it libc?) caused the aberrant behavior.
> The linux kernel has been touted by some of its proponents as the most tested
> and verified kernel around. Some may quibble with this characterization, but
> if not the most, certainly one of the most. And even so, this problem with l
> eap seconds managed to escape into released kernels. If that happened, here,
> what hope is there for other, less well tested systems.
The conclusions I draw from the utter lack of any similar reports from
non-linux systems are:
- either those kernels/libraries did not do leap-second processing, or
- they did and their code worked
Do you have different conclusions?
More information about the LEAPSECS