When I reported problems (several months ago) re xntp3-5.91 (or maybe
a bit earlier) I got the impression that they didn't have a Linux
machine to test code on. As the autoconfiscation was still being done
to the code (it was much worse before) it was clear that in some
places the code tested for one thing and elsewhere tested for the
other. My solution to the lack of ntp_adjtime() etc was to provide
dummy functions of those names which called adjtimex() to do the work
so emulating the old API which xntpd expected. I even submitted
patches to them to make it build perfectly (on libc5 at least).
All these things could be hidden away in libc if we wanted to provide
the interface that ntp expects.
I then got distracted with the Alpha 1024Hz problem which was causing
ntp to be unable to set the clock right. I'm happy with my hack
solution even if it isn't the cleanest in the world...
I've not tried ntp4 since out ntp3 systems seem to be rock solid. I'd
hope that they have taken the chance to clean up the ntp sources.
-- Jon Peatfield, DAMTP, Computer Officer, University of Cambridge Telephone: +44 1223 3 37852 Mail: J.S.Peatfield@damtp.cam.ac.uk- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/