wscript says:
# XXX: needed for ntp_worker, for now
if ctx.env.DEST_OS == "openbsd":
ctx.define("PLATFORM_OPENBSD", "1", quote=False)
Also mentioned in ./devel/ifdex-ignores
It's not needed any more. Do you want to kill it now, or wait until post
release?
--
These are my opin
>> POSIX defines ways to access the clock, but only the simple functions like
>> reading and setting the clock. It doesn't cover how to slew the clock or
>> tweak the clock speed (drift) - things like ntp_adjtime or adjtime(x).
> That is correct, but not relevant to the discussion of whether to
Hal Murray :
> wscript says:
> # XXX: needed for ntp_worker, for now
> if ctx.env.DEST_OS == "openbsd":
> ctx.define("PLATFORM_OPENBSD", "1", quote=False)
>
> Also mentioned in ./devel/ifdex-ignores
>
> It's not needed any more. Do you want to kill it now, or wait until post
> r
Hal Murray :
> So if you are saying that if the kernel has slew mode it has to call it
> ntp_adjtime or adjtime, that's OK, I guess, but not part of POSIX.
That is correct. I have researched this extensively, and while there are
still some places my grasp of the code is incomplete this is not on
> Why not build with all the refclocks? That is not a well tested way to
> configure NTPsec.
I regularly test/run with only the refclocks I plan to use.
I admit I haven't tested the SHM only case. If it doesn't work, we should
fix it.
> Nothing in ntpd.log of interest WRT shm/pps/gps
>> N
Yo Hal!
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:34:49 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> > Why not build with all the refclocks? That is not a well tested
> > way to configure NTPsec.
>
> I regularly test/run with only the refclocks I plan to use.
Sure, test/run as you wish, but why not build them all?
NTPsec has
> Sure, test/run as you wish, but why not build them all?
No great reason. I got started that way ages ago.
It seems like a good idea for somebody to test the not-all case.
I think we should be able to build non-bloat systems, or at least
minimal-bloat. This seems like a good step in that dir
Yo Hal!
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:24:25 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> > Sure, test/run as you wish, but why not build them all?
>
> No great reason. I got started that way ages ago.
So why should we work to allow pointless things?
> It seems like a good idea for somebody to test the not-all case
>> It seems like a good idea for somebody to test the not-all case.
> The all and not all case do get a lot of testing.
By "not all", I meant some but not all rather than none.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing list
devel@nt
Yo Hal!
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:42:50 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> >> It seems like a good idea for somebody to test the not-all case.
> > The all and not all case do get a lot of testing.
>
> By "not all", I meant some but not all rather than none.
Yes, I understood you, but all that does is
>> By "not all", I meant some but not all rather than none.
> Yes, I understood you, but all that does is lead to combintarorial excess.
It also reduces bloat.
All refclocks is close to double the file size. (I don't know how that
translates into actual memory usage after code gets loaded. str
Yo Hal!
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:10:42 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> >> By "not all", I meant some but not all rather than none.
> > Yes, I understood you, but all that does is lead to combintarorial
> > excess.
>
> It also reduces bloat.
Many other, easier, better, ways to reduce bloat.
But si
12 matches
Mail list logo
