From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kuwahara,T." <6vvetjsrt26xsrzlh1z0zn4d2grdah-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 1/8] ntp: add ADJ_SETOFFSET mode bit Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:27:58 +0900 Message-ID: References: <880d82bb8120f73973db27e0c48e949014b1a106.1292512461.git.richard.cochran@omicron.at> <20101221075612.GA13626@riccoc20.at.omicron.at> <1292970355.2618.76.camel@work-vm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1292970355.2618.76.camel@work-vm> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: john stultz Cc: Richard Cochran , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Alan Cox , Arnd Bergmann , Christoph Lameter , David Miller , Krzysztof Halasa , Peter Zijlstra , Rodolfo Giometti , Thomas Gleixner List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:25 AM, john stultz 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.