Yo Miroslav! On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:25:30 +0100 Miroslav Lichvar <mlich...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 01:25:27PM -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote:
> > Yo All!
> >
> > Small bug in ntpshm.c:
> >
> > int clockTimeStampNSec;
> > int receiveTimeStampNSec;
> >
> > Both NTP Classic, and NTPsec have changed that the int to unsigned
> > to avoid an upcoming rollover issue.
>
> Hm, which rollover issue? The fields are not supposed to have values
> outside interval [0, 999999999]. ptp4l and phc2sys follow that, so it
> does not matter if the fields are declared as signed or unsigned.
Sorry, I was looking at NSec, and thinking Sec. But since ptp4l is
talking to ntpd, it should use the same structure definition as ntpd. If
only to avoid confusion, as it confused me.
RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
g...@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588
Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
"If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin
pgpIuRFuzujTB.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ Linuxptp-users mailing list Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
