Gary E. Miller :
> > Which I find strange. Preferred for portability, maybe, but
> > adjtimex() is strictly more powerful.
>
> really? How do you get that from this text:
>
>ntp_adjtime ()
>The ntp_adjtime() library function (described in the NTP "Kernel
>Appli‐ cation Progr
Yo Eric!
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:07:25 -0400
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> Gary E. Miller :
> > Yo Eric!
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 17:24:10 -0400
> > "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> >
> > > Remember, you can't even *build* the KERNEL_PLL version on a
> > > platform without adjtimex(2).
> >
>
Hal Murray :
>
> e...@thyrsus.com said:
> > The big deal is that a build *with* KERNEL_PLL will generate adjtimex(2)
> > events into the capture logs. A build without KERNEL_PLL won't. Neither
> > kind of log will be replayable on the other kind of build.
>
> I don't have time to help with this
Gary E. Miller :
> Yo Eric!
>
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 17:24:10 -0400
> "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
>
> > Remember, you can't even *build* the KERNEL_PLL version on a platform
> > without adjtimex(2).
>
> The linux man page for adjtimex(2) says that ntp_adjtime() is preferred.
Which I find strange
Yo Hal!
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:27:02 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> g...@rellim.com said:
> >> PLL option in the Linux kernel that gets included when you say:
> >> CONFIG_NTP_PPS=3Dy
> > We never use that PLL. No one should use that PLL with linux.
>
> [What do you mean "we", white man.]
>
>
g...@rellim.com said:
>> PLL option in the Linux kernel that gets included when you say:
>> CONFIG_NTP_PPS=3Dy
> We never use that PLL. No one should use that PLL with linux.
[What do you mean "we", white man.]
Why not? It works well on my systems.
*HPGPS(0).GPS.0 l 30
Yo Hal!
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:09:46 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> Part of the problem is that we have a word tangle between my use of
> "kernel PLL" and your use of "KERNEL_PLL". I was referring to the
> PLL option in the Linux kernel that gets included when you say:
> CONFIG_NTP_PPS=y
We never
e...@thyrsus.com said:
> The big deal is that a build *with* KERNEL_PLL will generate adjtimex(2)
> events into the capture logs. A build without KERNEL_PLL won't. Neither
> kind of log will be replayable on the other kind of build.
I don't have time to help with this now.
I think you should k
Yo Eric!
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 17:24:10 -0400
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> Remember, you can't even *build* the KERNEL_PLL version on a platform
> without adjtimex(2).
The linux man page for adjtimex(2) says that ntp_adjtime() is preferred.
What system has adjtimex(2) and not ntp_adjtime(2)?
RG
Try not to send mail in HTML; mutt can't read it.
John Bell :
>At the risk of sounding stupid (or at least uninformed), couldn't you
>capture TESTFRAME logs from the same hardware *booted on each kind of
>kernel* (with the kernels being otherwise identically configured),
>and just have the WITH an
Gentlemen,On September 28, 2016 at 4:21 PM "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:The big deal is that a build *with* KERNEL_PLL will generate adjtimex(2)events into the capture logs. A build without KERNEL_PLL won't. Neitherkind of log will be replayable on the other kind of build.The original goal for TESTFRA
Mark: Heads up! TESTFRAME is probably almost pointless now, or at
least we can't count on it being fit for its original use until we
solve the slow-convergence problem well enough to dispense with the
KERNEL_PLL code.
Gary E. Miller :
> Hal Murray:
> > I don't see the problem. TESTRAME is testing
12 matches
Mail list logo
