> >> What is the reason for this patch?
> >>
> > This change is something I would like to have a second opinion. So, thanks
> > for the question.
> >
> > Originally at the end of sys_ntp_adjtime(), if the function copyout()
> > doesn't return an error, the value returned by
> ntp_is_time_error(), which variable name is retval, is saved in
> td->td_retval[0]. Chris modified this, being retval saved in the variable
> error, which is the one returned by sys_ntp_adjtime().
>
> In libbsd, copyout() is just a memcpy() which returns 0.
>
> >
> > Under some situations, ntp_adjtime() is called with modes = 0 just for
> > retrieving some values (for example
> herehttps://github.com/ptpd/ptpd/blob/master/src/dep/sys.c#L2036, please
> notice that here adjtimex() is ntp_adjtime()). In those
> cases, returning retval may not be meaningful. Other similar situation
> happens when mode is MOD_TAI
> (https://github.com/ptpd/ptpd/blob/master/src/dep/sys.c#L2070).
> >
> > This is more or less the reason. If there is better way to solve this, is
> > welcome.
>
> I don't think the changes make sense. The td->td_retval[0] is the return
> value of the system call if it is successful. The "error" indicates
> if the system call was successful (== 0), otherwise it returns -1 with errno
> set to "error".
>
So, do you also propose to remove the line "error = retval;" ? I think it is
better keeping the return value meaning of sys_ntp_adjtime(), i.e. just
returning 0 (successful) or -1 (in case of error)
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
