On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 05:27:58AM +0900, Kuwahara,T. wrote: > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:25 AM, john stultz <johnstul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't see why that would be better then adding a > > clear new mode flag? > > In short, time step is a special case of time slew. Those are the same, > only different in one parameter, as is shown in my previous post. > That's why I said there's no need for adding a new mode. Well, in addition to the objections raised by John, your suggested implementation is also shortsighted. The field timex.constant is copied into time_constant in some code paths. Obviously, this would be a bad thing when timex.constant==-huge. So, you need to clarify the interaction between ADJ_OFFSET, ADJ_TIMECONST, ADJ_TAI, timex.constant, time_constant, and MAXTC. If you would fully implement your idea, I expect it would become obvious that it a bit of a hack, both in the kernel code and in the user space interface. But, if you disagree, please just post a patch with the complete implementation... Thanks, Richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html