Harlan Stenn wrote: > Danny wrote: >> Harlan Stenn wrote: >>> There is a good reason for the move_fd code. Frank would probably know >>> better, and he's on vacation for another 2-3 weeks' time. > >> Actually I was the one that wrote it and yes there are good reasons for >> doing it. Yes, you wrote the initial version, I then refined that to cover more coner cases and added a 28 line text to explain the reasons for the code. What information is missing ? Or are you looking at a version different from 4.2.4pX ?
> > Cool - thanks for letting me know those things. > > Would you please *add* the good reasons to a comment in the code just > before the definition of move_fd() when you get a chance? There are > *plenty* of undocumented cases where we do something for a good reason > nobody can remember anymore. Do you see the comment starting .. On Unix systems the stdio library... ? This is supposed to be the explanation the the move_fd() implementation. > >> However, if for some reason this causes a problem on his >> particular O/S we can create a conditional macro to have it not use it. > > And until somebody besides you knows the good reason for move_fd(), > nobody else will know if disabling move_fd() for AIX will be a good > thing or if it will trade one problem for another (in this case, the > underlying reason for having move_fd()). Good point ! That's why I'd rather like to find out what goes wrong with move_fd() on AIX. We may either uncover a ntpd implementation bug, an AIX spcialty or an AIX library bug. > >>> I think it has to do with making sure there is room to open different sorts >>> of files, and may only be important if one has refclocks. >>> >>> But it could be Bad to disable move_fd() in general for AIX. >>> >> We don't know the general case to be able to answer that one. > > OK, so again, when the underlying reasons fo having move_fd() are > documented (and therefore better known) in general, we have a chance of > coming up with a better answer for this, too. > >>> As for IPv6, are there any versions of AIX where IPv6 is working? >> Yes, IPv6 does work on AIX. It's just that it's being confused by 6over4 >> and 4in6 and at least some versions of the O/S is not keeping the >> address space separate. It should be running as a dual-stack or at least >> not trying to play tricks with the address space. > > OK, sounds to me like that is an instance of "not working", at least as > far as we are concerned. > > If there are known problems/issues with things like this, I would > strongly request that people add this sort of information somewhere. It > could be the code, or it could be at http://support.ntp.org/Dev . > > If we can figure out which versions of the OS do what, and if we can > determine what OS version we have at runtime, we can have a single AIX > executable DTRT depending on the OS verison (or patch level). > > H Frank _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
