adjtime and settimeofday

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

adjtime and settimeofday

Alexander Hall
 From looking through the kernel code, it does not seem that
settimeofday(2) resets the action of a previous call to adjtime(2).
Would it not be reasonable to assume that to happen?

I see four possibilities:

1. It does reset it. I am wrong. And blind.
2. No, it is not reasonable. (Why?)
3. It would be reasonable, but it has not been thought of.
4. It has been thought of, but noone has sent the code to fix it.

Can anyone enlighten me in this matter?

/Alexander

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: adjtime and settimeofday

Rickard Dahlstrand
Alexander Hall wrote:

> From looking through the kernel code, it does not seem that
> settimeofday(2) resets the action of a previous call to adjtime(2).
> Would it not be reasonable to assume that to happen?
>
> I see four possibilities:
>
> 1. It does reset it. I am wrong. And blind.
> 2. No, it is not reasonable. (Why?)
> 3. It would be reasonable, but it has not been thought of.
> 4. It has been thought of, but noone has sent the code to fix it.
>
> Can anyone enlighten me in this matter?
>
> /Alexander
>
Are there any comments on this?

Rickard.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: adjtime and settimeofday

Otto Moerbeek
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Rickard Dahlstrand wrote:

> Alexander Hall wrote:
>
> > From looking through the kernel code, it does not seem that
> > settimeofday(2) resets the action of a previous call to adjtime(2).
> > Would it not be reasonable to assume that to happen?
> >
> > I see four possibilities:
> >
> > 1. It does reset it. I am wrong. And blind.
> > 2. No, it is not reasonable. (Why?)
> > 3. It would be reasonable, but it has not been thought of.
> > 4. It has been thought of, but noone has sent the code to fix it.
> >
> > Can anyone enlighten me in this matter?
> >
> > /Alexander
> >
> Are there any comments on this?
>
> Rickard.

I'd say it's 3 or 4.

        -Otto