Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] port: sequence of nrate and peer_delay calculation

2017-04-06 Thread Richard Cochran
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:30:39PM +0200, Burkhard Ilsen wrote: > Alright then, I fixed it. We want to review your patches, and for that we need to also quote them in replies. Can you please teach your mailer to send plain text, or use a different mailer? Once, when I was forced to use Outlook/E

Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] tsproc_update_offset() fails when it should succeed

2017-04-06 Thread Miroslav Lichvar
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:08:29PM +0200, Burkhard Ilsen wrote: > Hearing no complains I propose the attached patch. > > > Like Jake said, your patch is whitespace damaged. > Thanks for the info, I am now using your pre-commit hook. There is still an odd hunk adding some whitespace. As for the c

[Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] port: sequence of nrate and peer_delay calculation

2017-04-06 Thread Burkhard Ilsen
2017-04-04 4:29 GMT+02:00 Richard Cochran : > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 03:52:13PM +0200, Burkhard Ilsen wrote: >> 2. >> The nrate ratio should be calculated before the delay, > > I can't see any reason not to put port_nrate_calculate() first. Alright then, I fixed it. But I am not sure about the "

[Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] tsproc_update_offset() fails when it should succeed

2017-04-06 Thread Burkhard Ilsen
Hi Richard, Jake 2017-04-04 3:44 GMT+02:00 Richard Cochran : > You mean the call to tsproc_reset() after SERVO_JUMP... > which passes fail=0, preserving tsproc->filter_delay. Since we took > the trouble to keep filter_delay, then yes, we should also use it! Exaclty. Hearing no complains I propo