>IMO, what's the hurry? The nanotime stuff, which is disabled in the
>package, is fairly forward-looking. Little benefit would be obtained
>for the majority of hardware available today. (Think V.90!)

I'm not sure I can agree with that.  The use of process cycle counters
seems like it will benefit timekeeping on a number of architectures in
use today.

>And also,
>the ntp4.x.x distribution is still in pre-release. One recent snapshot
>had a wicked bug which caused certain clocks to diverge. There's still
>a similar problem with WinNT boxes, but that may turn out to be very
>specific to WinNT, or perhaps to the compiler used.

I agree with that; I think that definately we should wait until ntp4
stabilizies a bit more.  However, I don't think putting in the nanokernel
stuff now affects that.

--Ken