On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 05:47 +0900, Kuwahara,T. wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Richard Cochran > <richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > the PTP Hardware Clocks for which this whole patch > > set was created in the first place will keep their time as TAI. > > Are you sure of that? I don't have the standard handy (it's non-free, > right?) but it seems that the Annex B states differently. But that's > not the point anyway. My concern is that your patch not only adds the > useless (and broken) feature to the existing syscall but also makes a > permanent change to the public interface for your own use. That's > what I'm against. So if you stop touching the struct timex, I won't > complain anymore. You still haven't explained *why* you're so protective of the timex and adjtimex interfaces. While I do want to keep compatible the functionality where possible, I don't see why Linux should be limited by what other OSes do. Injecting an offset to the system time seems like a reasonable thing for adjtimex to do (rather then adding a new syscall). Further utilizing a new mode bit for this functionality seems reasonable and cleaner then your suggestions for utilizing existing mode bits in combined with other magic bits. If there is a compelling reason why not to do this, do please let us know! We might just agree with you after hearing it. :) thanks -john -- 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