[ntp:hackers] odd behaviour (one more time)

Jim Houston jim.houston at ccur.com
Tue Sep 9 13:47:36 UTC 2008


On Tuesday 09 September 2008 03:07:25 clemens at dwf.com wrote:
> Jim:-
> I had also looked at the list of things that KERNEL_PLL depended on in the
> configuration code, and was sure that none of those were defined, again,
> wrong timex.h .
>
> Mumph.
...
>
> So, what is the problem here, and what is the solution?
> Are wrong time constants being used in the Linux kernel when STA_NANO is
> set? Should this code NOT be being included for Linux?
> And why in my p127 but not p115?
> Confused.

Hi Reg,

The problem is that ntpd and the kernel need to come to a common 
understanding of the meaning of the time_constant value.  I don't 
know how to make that happen.  

The current use of #ifdef STA_NANO to decide if the time_constant
should be sys_poll or sys_poll-4 means that the timex.h and the kernel
need to match.  In previous versions of ntpd there was code which checked
if the STA_NANO (or perhaps MOD_NANO) flag could be set.  It used this test
to choose between the microsecond or nanosecond interface.  This allowed
switching between microsecond and nanosecond versions of the kernel
code without having to have two versions of ntpd built with two versions
of timex.h.

I got a bounce message from ntp:hackers on my last message
saying, that it was waiting for the moderator to decide if it should be
sent to the group.   Maybe you could summarize our discussion and
post it.

I hope this helps.

Jim Houston - Concurrent Computer Corp.









More information about the hackers mailing list