Re: [PATCH 2/2 v3] adjtimex.2: add explanation on ADJ_TAI mode
From: Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) <hidden>
Date: 2014-12-30 12:54:37
Also in:
lkml
Hello Laurent, On 11/30/2014 11:14 AM, Laurent Georget wrote:
This patch includes the adjtimex mode ADJ_TAI, intended to update the TAI offset.
Thanks. Applied, with a few rewordings (which you can find in Git). One point/question below.
There are other FIXMEs in the man page and it's a bit outdated. I'll be on it once those first patches are accepted (to be sure to do the right thing).
I would be happy to get more such patches.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/man2/adjtimex.2 b/man2/adjtimex.2 index 0b919c5..396b8cc 100644 --- a/man2/adjtimex.2 +++ b/man2/adjtimex.2@@ -24,9 +24,7 @@ .\" Modified 1997-01-31 by Eric S. Raymond <esr-4uCgticg2UFBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> .\" Modified 1997-07-30 by Paul Slootman <paul-pqePwCal/LhZiXb3D+6dPA@public.gmane.org> .\" Modified 2004-05-27 by Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> -.\" -.\" FIXME Document ADJ_TAI (added in Linux 2.6.26) -.\" commit 153b5d054ac2d98ea0d86504884326b6777f683d +.\" Modified 2014-11-30 by Laurent Georget <laurent.georget-vbcOdlJ0SulGWvitb5QawA@public.gmane.org> .\" .\" FIXME Document ADJ_MICRO and ADJ_NANO (added in Linux 2.6.26) .\" commit eea83d896e318bda54be2d2770d2c5d6668d11db@@ -101,6 +99,7 @@ combination of zero or more of the following bits: #define ADJ_ESTERROR 0x0008 /* estimated time error */ #define ADJ_STATUS 0x0010 /* clock status */ #define ADJ_TIMECONST 0x0020 /* pll time constant */ +#define ADJ_TAI 0x0080 /* TAI offset */ #define ADJ_TICK 0x4000 /* tick value */ #define ADJ_OFFSET_SINGLESHOT 0x8001 /* old-fashioned adjtime() */ .fi@@ -110,6 +109,24 @@ Ordinary users are restricted to a zero value for .IR modes . Only the superuser may set any parameters. .br +In the case of +.BR ADJ_TAI , +as +.I buf->tai +is read-only, the new value is passed through +.IR buf->constant , +therefore +.B ADJ_TIMECONST +and +.B ADJ_TAI +should probably not be used at the same time.
"should probably not" seems a little weak to me. Surely it is rather the case that they *must not* be used at the same time. I changed it to "must not". Thanks, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html