Re: [ Re: NTP dumps Linux, film at 11. [Fwd/FYI]]

Jon Peatfield (
02 Dec 1998 03:45:24 +0000

> And I think that people shoot themselves in their own foot when
> complaining about some alpha code not working for Linux without
> having made some contribution to that code. As a natural reaction the
> maintainer wants to get rid of the complaints.
> Incompatibilities between libc5 and libc6 add another complexity. For
> historical reasons Linux uses one syscall (adjtimex) where the other
> systems seem to use three (adjtime, net_adjtime, ntp_gettime). This
> makes the autoconf stuff complicated.

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:

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to Please read the FAQ at