Yo Hal! On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:22:28 -0700 Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net> wrote:
> devel@ntpsec.org said: > > Prove it. I have already sent you a detailed analysis, you keep > > saying no, but refuse to defend your point. > > > I can accept an "I don't know yet", but if you keep saying it is > > wrong I expect you to be able to prove your point. > > I didn't follow your detailed analysis carefully, but I don't > remember the key point. Rather than repeating myself: https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/2017-April/004179.html https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/2017-April/004266.html > If there is no pivot in step_clock, where is it done? We are not talking about step_clock(), so that prolly adds to the confusion. We are talking about adj_systime(). That function never change the time more than --panicgate, which is almost always +/- 1,000 seconds. There is one odd patch, mode_ntpdate, that never calls setp_system() for steps more than 128 ms. > It all works if the system time is "close enough". Yes, and adj_systime() is only called when system time is "close enough". If the step is more than panicgate (usually 1,000 seconds), then step_systime() or adj_systime() is called. Both those are also a mess, but one (two?) messes at a time. > Were you assuming that? I was. I'm not assuming that, i know the code says that. > Eric isn't. I'll let Eric speak for Eric. Given that the adjustment path is so tortured, I like the suggestion someone made a while back to add a trace mode to the loopfilter code. RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703 g...@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588 Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas? "If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin
pgpdE6guz1ju5.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
