On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Alan Cox <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk">alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk</a>></span> wrote<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
> > system time bimble track a source makes sense just as with NTP but making<br>
> > it a new clock seems the wrong model extending a non-too-bright API when<br>
> > you can just put the time sources in a file tree.<br>
><br>
> Don't get your meaning here, what did you mean by "file tree?"<br>
<br>
</div>Something like<br>
<br>
/sys/class/timesource/<name>/...<br>
<br>
at which point we don't have to enumerate them all, add special system<br>
calls and then fret about the fact you can't access them from things like<br>
shell scripts.<br>
</blockquote><br>
I agree that this interface is the best way to be future proof. This
appears to allow for multiple "clocks" or nodes, and doesn't get messed
up when we add more than one NIC with separate clocks to a machine.<br>