Re: [chrony-dev] SW/HW timestamping on Linux

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More chrony.tuxfamily.org/chrony-dev Archives ]


The chip is actually a I354, which is slightly different than the I350, but I don’t think it matters much. I also have interfaces with I211 chips, and the ordering issue appears to happen there as well. I don’t think the sleep after the send is going to affect the order of the timestamp and response messages since both are requested at the point of the outbound send.

Denny


> On Nov 15, 2016, at 02:07, Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 08:59:17PM -0800, Denny Page wrote:
>> I tested with a usleep(100) following the sendmsg() call. This didn’t appear to have any impact. Was the usleep() intended to influence the order of timestamp vs. server response messages?
> 
> Yes, that was the idea. Could you try increasing the sleep interval to
> 1000 or maybe 10000? Anyway, I asked about this on the Intel
> development list:
> 
> http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/Week-of-Mon-20161114/007226.html


--
To unsubscribe email chrony-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the subject.
For help email chrony-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with "help" in the subject.
Trouble?  Email listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.


Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/