Replacing C

[Eric S. Raymond]

Kurt Roeckx <kurt at roeckx.be>:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:37:43PM -0800, Hal Murray wrote:
> > 
> > >> OTOH, if the OS is time stamping packets, and PPS, for the ntpd daemon
> > >> then the daemon can tolerate 'some' jitter. 
> > 
> > > In normal operation we can expect lots of pairs of small allocations at UDP
> > > datagram sizes with deallocation fairly rapidly thereafter. So the heap will
> > > have lots of churn, which is bad... 
> > 
> > We don't care about the timing in most of the code.  The only critical 
> > section is the chunk between grabbing the time and sending the packet.  That 
> > chunk is likely to involve crypto.
> > 
> > We could fix that with another packet.  The idea is that you get a time stamp 
> > from the kernel on the transmit side.  Then you have to send another packet 
> > to get that time stamp to the other end.
> 
> Didn't the support for that get removed? Or am I confusing it with
> something else?

I think you are, and no blame attaches.  What Hal is suggesting sounds a bit like
interleave mode and drivestamps.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>