The chip is actually a I354, which is slightly different than the I350, but I don’t think it matters much. I also have interfaces with I211 chips, and the ordering issue appears to happen there as well. I don’t think the sleep after the send is going to affect the order of the timestamp and response messages since both are requested at the point of the outbound send.
Denny > On Nov 15, 2016, at 02:07, Miroslav Lichvar <mlich...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 08:59:17PM -0800, Denny Page wrote: >> I tested with a usleep(100) following the sendmsg() call. This didn’t appear >> to have any impact. Was the usleep() intended to influence the order of >> timestamp vs. server response messages? > > Yes, that was the idea. Could you try increasing the sleep interval to > 1000 or maybe 10000? Anyway, I asked about this on the Intel > development list: > > http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/Week-of-Mon-20161114/007226.html -- To unsubscribe email chrony-dev-requ...@chrony.tuxfamily.org with "unsubscribe" in the subject. For help email chrony-dev-requ...@chrony.tuxfamily.org with "help" in the subject. Trouble? Email listmas...@chrony.tuxfamily.org.