>> How specific is this to chronyd? > AFAIK no other application implements the server side of the protocol. >> Would it make sense to call this chronysock >> instead of just sock? > Yes, that makes sense. If there are no other issues with the > patches, I can resend.
Calling it chronysock has the disadvantage of sounding like only chrony should use it. >> The implementation seems fine but its using an interface that was defined by >> chrony. I suppose another application could implement the same interface >> though.. > ntpsec might be interested in implementing it. We'll see. Is there a URL for the spec? I don't want an RFC. Good comments in a header file may be enough. A separate document may be better if there are complications that need explaining. Is there a version number? (or plan for how to update things) -------- I agree that the current SHM setup is far from wonderful. There is a clean way to make SHM read-only by receivers so you can have multiple receivers. That would let you run gpsmon while chronyd/ntpd is running. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
