Re: [PATCH] Re: time() glitch on 2.4.18: solved

[Willy Tarreau]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:37:57PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 18:02, Jim Paris wrote:
> > > > > +		if (count > LATCH) {
> > > > 
> > > > may be (count >= LATCH) would be even better ?
> > > 
> > > Some PIT clones seem to hold the LATCH value momentarily judging by
> > > other things that were triggered wrongly by >=
> > 
> > If so, then that's a separate problem: the later code
> > 
> > 	count = ((LATCH-1) - count) * TICK_SIZE;
> > 	delay_at_last_interrupt = (count + LATCH/2) / LATCH;
> > 
> 
> It might be interesting to catch that case with a printk too and put
> both in 2.5 and see what comes out in the wash yes

could that be the reason a few people have experienced occasionnal jumps
backwards in gettimeofday() a few months ago, which many others could never
reproduce ? Just because of buggy hardware ?

If so, I think the printk patch should be proposed to Marcelo before
2.4.20-final.

Regards,
Willy