[ntp:questions] Request to test patch for ntpd

David Taylor david-taylor at blueyonder.co.uk.invalid
Thu Jan 29 08:16:12 UTC 2015


On 28/01/2015 17:30, Martin Burnicki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> several months ago I have opened NTP bug #2592
> "Leap second warning from refclock lost, and time offsets may not be
> accepted if refclock driver uses PPS"
> http://bugs.ntp.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2592
>
> By intensive testing with the current NTP tarball 4.2.8p1-RC1
> http://archive.ntp.org/ntp4/ntp-4.2/ntp-4.2.8p1-RC1.tar.gz
>
> we have found out that a leap second status from a refclock is still not
> picked up in 4.2.8, and even worse, that initial synchronization may not
> work if the initial time offset is in a certain range. See the bug
> report for details.
>
> As far as we have seen there's a simple fix for this. Anyway, I'd like
> to ask if folks who are using refclocks with PPS support could test the
> patch to make sure it doesn't break something else.
>
> To do so, you can just download the tarball mentioned above, then change
> into the base directory and extract this tarball there:
> http://people.ntp.org/burnicki/ntp-2592-ntp_proto.tar.gz
>
> This just overwrite ntpd/ntp_proto.c with a version containing the patch
> mentioned in the bug report.
>
> We have already run the following tests successfully:
>
> - parse driver (driver 8) with built-in PPS enabled
> - parse driver 8 without built-in PPS, but ATOM in addition
> - network peer marked as "prefer", and ATOM in addition
>
> It would be great if some folks who use a refclock with PPS run this
> test and see if everything still works as before, or even better. ;-)
>
> Martin
===========================================

Martin,

I guess you have also checked, or could easily check, on Windows?  No 
point in duplicating your work.

-- 
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu



More information about the questions mailing list