> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maciek Machnikowski <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:55 PM
> To: Keller, Jacob E <[email protected]>
> Cc: Hal Murray <[email protected]>; Miroslav Lichvar
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 2/4] Add sock servo.
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 05:06:17PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hal Murray <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:34 AM
> > > To: Miroslav Lichvar <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: Keller, Jacob E <[email protected]>; linuxptp-
> > > [email protected]; Hal Murray <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 2/4] Add sock servo.
> > >
> > >
> > > >> How specific is this to chronyd?
> > > > AFAIK no other application implements the server side of the protocol.
> > > >> Would it make sense to call this chronysock
> > > >> instead of just sock?
> > > > Yes, that makes sense. If there are no other issues with the patches, I
> > > > can
> > > > resend.
> > >
> > > Calling it chronysock has the disadvantage of sounding like only chrony
> > > should
> > > use it.
> > >
> >
> > Yea, but I feel that just "sock" is vague. I'm not totally opposed to it
> > though.
>
> What about rcl_sock or refclock_sock? It's used in the file linked by
> Miroslav.
>
> Regards
> Maciek
Both of those sound good to me. Slight preference to refclock_sock if its not
too long.
Thanks,
Jake
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
