Hi Richard,
On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 20:02 -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 08:00:51PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 02:57:36PM -0700, Vedang Patel wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -2472,6 +2480,7 @@ static enum fsm_event bc_event(struct port
> > > *p, int fd_index)
> > > if (p->best)
> > > fc_clear(p->best);
> > > port_set_announce_tmo(p);
> > > + port_clr_tmo(p->fda.fd[FD_SYNC_RX_TIMER]);
> > > delay_req_prune(p);
> > > if (clock_slave_only(p->clock) && p-
> > > >delayMechanism != DM_P2P &&
> > > port_renew_transport(p)) {
> > > @@ -2862,10 +2871,24 @@ struct port *port_open(int phc_index,
> > This hunk needs some kind of justification, especially since you
> > undo
> > it later in the series.
> Can you avoid this by putting the inhibit_announce patch first?
>
I will add the comment for clearing the SYNC_RX_TIMER. It is basically
to clear out the event returned by poll().
But, I don't understand how moving the inhibit_announce before this
will help. I am not removing the hunk anywhere.
Thanks,
Vedang
> Thanks,
> Richard
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
