> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Murray <halmur...@sonic.net>
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:34 AM
> To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlich...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com>; linuxptp-
> de...@lists.sourceforge.net; Hal Murray <halmur...@sonic.net>
> Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 2/4] Add sock servo.
>
>
> >> 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.
>
Yea, but I feel that just "sock" is vague. I'm not totally opposed to it though.
Thanks,
Jake
> >> 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?
>
> --------
>
> 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
