When there are multiple instances of ptp4l or phc2sys running on the
system, it's difficult to tell which message belongs to which
instance. The first patch adds new options to ptp4l and phc2sys which
can be used to specify a different prefix for each instance, so
different instances can use differ
When an interface doesn't support HW time stamping, before falling back
to SW time stamping, check if it's actually supported and exit with an
error message if not.
Signed-off-by: Miroslav Lichvar
---
timemaster.c | 13 ++---
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a
Use the new options of ptp4l and phc2sys to prefix their log messages
with the PTP domain number and name of interface(s).
Signed-off-by: Miroslav Lichvar
---
timemaster.c | 21 -
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/timemaster.c b/timemaster.c
index
When running multiple instances of ptp4l or phc2sys, it's difficult to
tell which log message belongs to which instance. Add new options to
ptp4l and phc2sys which can specify a prefix for all messages printed to
the standard output or system log, so messages from different instances
can have diffe
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:55:51PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> Poll for link up/down events. When a link goes down, the port becomes
> faulty until the link goes up again. We keep the fault timer from the
> existing fault detection, but a downed link prevents clear the fault.
I'm testing thi
On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 13:09 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> Dear linuxptp users and developers,
>
> I am planning to release version 1.8 in one week, without any major
> new features, in order to fix the regression in version 1.7.
>
> [ Sound familiar? The same thing happened to 1.6. I don't ha
On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 16:33 +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> When there are multiple instances of ptp4l or phc2sys running on the
> system, it's difficult to tell which message belongs to which
> instance. The first patch adds new options to ptp4l and phc2sys which
> can be used to specify a differ
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:16:21PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> I'm testing this, but I'm not sure if it's working correctly. When I
> take the interface down I see a "link up" message from ptp4l. When I
> bring it up, there is another "link up" message.
I only tested by pulling the cable! A
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:39:16PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> Sounds good to me. I don't have any current issues, but being able to
> let people know that the RTNL link handling will be in 1.7 will be
> nice. Thanks for all your work.
Maybe rtnl is not quite ready yet. I'd like positive feed
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:35:56AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:16:21PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > I'm testing this, but I'm not sure if it's working correctly. When I
> > take the interface down I see a "link up" message from ptp4l. When I
> > bring it up, the
10 matches
Mail list logo
