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.

Reply via email to