On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:33:31AM +0200, Marco Marongiu wrote:
On 12/05/15 11:28, Marco Marongiu wrote:
Hi there
In http://doc.ntp.org/4.2.6p5/ntpd.html#leap I read: If the leap is in
the future less than 28 days, the leap warning bits are set.
What are the practical consequences
On 13/05/15 13:23, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
I'm not sure what exactly are you asking here. Do you see in your
testing or the source code something different from what is described
in the document?
No, I am trying to understand if what I understand* from the
documentation is correct.
* sorry
On 13/05/15 11:03, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:33:31AM +0200, Marco Marongiu wrote:
On 12/05/15 11:28, Marco Marongiu wrote:
Hi there
In http://doc.ntp.org/4.2.6p5/ntpd.html#leap I read: If the leap is in
the future less than 28 days, the leap warning bits are set.
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:44:37AM +0200, Marco Marongiu wrote:
I understand that the leap second is not armed in the kernel if only the
warning is set. Rather, it seems that the warning is used by a client to
understand if it should believe its upstreams when they claim there will
be a leap
Hi there
In http://doc.ntp.org/4.2.6p5/ntpd.html#leap I read: If the leap is in
the future less than 28 days, the leap warning bits are set.
What are the practical consequences of the warning bits being set? Will
they cause the leap second to be armed in the kernel eventually? What if
the kernel
On 12/05/15 11:28, Marco Marongiu wrote:
Hi there
In http://doc.ntp.org/4.2.6p5/ntpd.html#leap I read: If the leap is in
the future less than 28 days, the leap warning bits are set.
What are the practical consequences of the warning bits being set? Will
they cause the leap second to be
