Re: crond, hwclock, and clockspeed

[email protected] (Paul Jarc) writes:

> Lloyd Zusman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hmm ... couldn't the >25-day case be handled by rw-sleep, which could
>> break long intervals into a group of slightly-less-than-25-day
>> increments?
>
> It could, but that would interfere with an early wakeup from a manual
> SIGALRM, since there's no way to tell where the SIGALRM came from.
> I'd rather see the kernel fixed.  Until then, a little extra scripting
> will get the job done, and will make the user more aware that some
> things (early wakeups) won't work quite the same.

A thought: could rw-sleep be patched to do an early wakeup in response
to something in addition to SIGALRM, such as SIGHUP?  If so, then the
hypothetical change I mentioned above would still work, as long as those
of us with broken setitimer calls always use that extra signal for an
early wakeup.


-- 
 Lloyd Zusman
 [email protected]
 God bless you.