Once upon a time, Majdi S. Abbas <m...@latt.net> said: > "Total and utter carnage" is a bit of a stretch. Linux hosts > that ran applications dependant on nanosleeps needed reboots. Note > that this wasn't an issue in 2009, because the poorly tested change in > question hadn't yet been made to the Linux kernel.
In 2009, there was a different problem. If the system was under sufficient kernel-related load (such as disk I/O), the kernel's attempt to print an informational message that a leap second had been added caused a kernel deadlock, immediately killing the system. I don't remember any widespread Linux-related leap second issues before that though. -- Chris Adams <c...@cmadams.net>
