Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 10:26:26 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: struct timex and Linux adjtimex() Message-ID: <60612.1606991186@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <X8i715mJUphnxXEo@kib.kiev.ua> References: <202012030523.0B35NsG7003810@slippy.cwsent.com> <X8i4UIzzH7vxkKvH@kib.kiev.ua> <60532.1606990671@critter.freebsd.dk> <X8i715mJUphnxXEo@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-------- Konstantin Belousov writes: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:17:51AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > -------- > > Konstantin Belousov writes: > > > > > 1. Implement new syscall, which would take extended struct timex. > > > ntp_adjtimex() perhaps should be kept for backward compatibility. > > > [It does not matter where struct timeval is placed in the updated > > > struct timex, see below]. > > > > That would break all ports with timekeeping software. > Why ? Last I looked they all had "#ifdef FreeBSD use ntp_adjtim()", so if you rename it to ntp_adjtimex() you break them. I see no problem having a #define to alias timex() to ntp_adjtime(), but I doubt it would make life easier for anybody. (I think we used to have that and it got GC'ed.) *If* we want to do this, the right way is to extend struct timex and let ntpadjtime(2) handle the new modes. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?60612.1606991186>