e...@thyrsus.com said: > *blink* I think I just achieved enlightenment. Gary, Hal, please review > the following carefully to ensure that I haven't updated my beliefs wrongly.
If there is any discussion, it's just nit-picking. Some of it might be interesting, but you have the big picture correct. > Therefore I *deduce* that the PLL correction (the one NTP does, not the > in-kernel one Hal tells us is associated with PPS) requires a monotonically > increasing clock. It's the simplest explanation for the way libntp/ > systime.c works, and it explains *everything* that has puzzled me about that > code. I don't believe there is any fundamental reason why a PLL requires monotonic clocks. I don't think the concept even makes sense to a PLL. What would be the equivalent in a hardware PLL? What if you were controlling temperature? I'd guess that the monotonic/Lamport check was added in a place where it seemed to make sense and the clock fuzzing happened to trigger it. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
