[ntp:hackers] Time constant too large?
David L. Mills
mills at udel.edu
Tue Jan 8 03:53:25 UTC 2008
As the author of the code, I declare it a bug, by bug. It was my intent
that the time and frequency updates be atomic. But, the fix for the bug
should be to upgrade to the nanokernel.
In any case, I modified the code to do the frequency initialization
separate from the time adjustment. In the process, I see the frequency
initialization is not as precise as I had intended. Workin' on it.
Dave
Brian Utterback wrote:
> First, do you assert that it is in fact a bug in the kernel? It is
> following the behavior
> of the reference code for the microkernel. If it is a bug, then it
> should be easy
> enough to get fixed going forward, but I am concerned about people
> building
> for currently released kernels.
>
> As for upgrading the kernel to incorporate the nanokernel, that is my
> intention. The
> build process is not nearly as baroque (broke?) as it once was. Now
> the it is open
> source, it can be built from freely available tools. However, the
> weeds that have
> grown over the last ten years have roots the twine throughout the
> code. Pulling them
> out will be rather tricky.
>
> Do you have any interest in running Nevada on any of the herd,
> preferably something
> with a PPS capable refclock attached to test on?
>
> s n i p
More information about the hackers
mailing list