On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 08:19 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 08:53:27PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> >
> > I'm not too familiar with management.. is it possible for management
> > messages to come in via the network socket?
>
> Yes, but I think this special push informat
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 08:53:27PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
>
> I'm not too familiar with management.. is it possible for management
> messages to come in via the network socket?
Yes, but I think this special push information should only appear on
the loacl UDS interface. Putting unsolicited
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Cochran [mailto:richardcoch...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:22 AM
> To: Keller, Jacob E
> Cc: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] ptp4l push notifications
>
> On Mon, Dec 09,
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 07:39:19PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
>
> How would this work with multiple management interfaces? Is that even
> possible?
>
> IE: multiple programs connected? Does the management interface properly
> only send to a single client? If so we can use the client-request
>
On Sat, 2013-12-07 at 08:13 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 05:11:48PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> >
> > What do you think about having an extended message which indicates "I am
> > ready to receive".. then once ptp4l gets this, it then starts pushing a
> > set of notif
> I think this should be "configurable" at run time, *not* as a
> configuration file option. I imagine having a custom management
> message that allows the client to request different kinds of status
> information, like port state, BMC result, and so on. (Or maybe the
> client can specify manageme
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 05:11:48PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
>
> What do you think about having an extended message which indicates "I am
> ready to receive".. then once ptp4l gets this, it then starts pushing a
> set of notifications on events.
>
> I like this better than a configuration opt
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 18:40 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:33:21PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> >
> > I like this idea. I also think if we supported the "push" updates from
> > ptp4l, where ptp4l sends data over the management interface it would
> > enable the phc2sys
