From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755637Ab0CJIrz (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:47:55 -0500 Received: from hawking.rebel.net.au ([203.20.69.83]:54927 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751024Ab0CJIrw (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:47:52 -0500 Message-ID: <4B975CB4.4000804@davidnewall.com> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:17:48 +1030 From: David Newall User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Srinivas Nayak CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BUG: Is it a bug in Linux time() function or Linux OS calls? References: <460422.78917.qm@web7603.mail.in.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <460422.78917.qm@web7603.mail.in.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dear Srinivas Nayak, I don't suppose you're writing to a network mounted disk, with the network device's clock about half a second behind your test machine? Otherwise -- and I'm just guessing here, and will leave it to you to UTSL -- this could be explained by use of two different algorithms for converting a higher-resolution time source to the one-second resolution. A truncation algorithm versus a rounding algorithm could produce the result you demonstrate. Regards, David