> -Original Message-
> From: Burkhard Ilsen [mailto:burkhardil...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 3:32 PM
> To: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] port: sequence of nrate and peer_delay
> calculation
&g
On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 12:31:30AM +0200, Burkhard Ilsen wrote:
> The sequence of port_nrate_calculate() and tsproc_update_delay()
> in port_peer_delay() is mixed up.
> The peer delay depends on the nrate ratio so the nrate ratio
> shall be updated before peer delay is calculated.
>
> Signed-off-b
The sequence of port_nrate_calculate() and tsproc_update_delay()
in port_peer_delay() is mixed up.
The peer delay depends on the nrate ratio so the nrate ratio
shall be updated before peer delay is calculated.
Signed-off-by: Burkhard Ilsen
---
port.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+),
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:11:24PM +0200, Burkhard Ilsen wrote:
> Now shall I resend the patch?
Yes, please.
Thanks,
Richard
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdo
Hi Richard
2017-04-06 17:32 GMT+02:00 Richard Cochran :
> 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?
Yes, these web mailers are a real pain. Sending plain-text did not help
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
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 "
