> -Original Message-
> From: Hal Murray
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 2:09 AM
> To: Keller, Jacob E
> Cc: Maciek Machnikowski ; Hal Murray
> ; linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 2/4] Add sock servo.
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 07:29:23AM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> Both of those sound good to me. Slight preference to refclock_sock if its not
> too long.
+1 refclock_sock
Thanks,
Richard
___
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
>> What about rcl_sock or refclock_sock? It's used in the file linked by
Miroslav.
> Both of those sound good to me. Slight preference to refclock_sock if its not
> too long.
How about SOCK?
In the ntp context, we already have SHM and PPS. Both show up in the refid
slot in packets.
Just to
> -Original Message-
> From: Maciek Machnikowski
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:55 PM
> To: Keller, Jacob E
> Cc: Hal Murray ; Miroslav Lichvar
> ; linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 2/4] Add sock servo.
>
> On
urceforge.net; Hal Murray
> > 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 th
> -Original Message-
> From: Hal Murray
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:34 AM
> To: Miroslav Lichvar
> Cc: Keller, Jacob E ; linuxptp-
> de...@lists.sourceforge.net; Hal Murray
> Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 2/4] Add sock servo.
>
>
> >
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 04:34:05AM -0800, Hal Murray wrote:
> 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.
Here is the structure of the message with some
>> 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
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 09:51:52AM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
> 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
On 11/10/2022 7:19 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
Add a second servo that provides samples to other processes in order to
control the clock. The chrony SOCK refclock uses a Unix domain socket
instead of a shared memory segment.
The main advantage over the NTP SHM refclock is better security as
10 matches
Mail list logo
