Subject: is this refclock_palisade.c patch (PR#29685) ok to commit?
To: None <current-users@netbsd.org>
From: Jeff Rizzo <riz@netbsd.org>
List: current-users
Date: 05/20/2005 13:44:49
--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This looks straightforward enough, but since I'm not an ntp guy, I thought
I'd ask here before committing.

PR#29685 from Brian Buhrow describes an issue with
dist/ntp/ntpd/refclock_palisade.c confusing microseconds and
nanoseconds, and offers the patch below to correct it.

Is this OK to commit?


Index: refclock_palisade.c
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
RCS file: /cvsroot/src/dist/ntp/ntpd/refclock_palisade.c,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.2 refclock_palisade.c
--- refclock_palisade.c	4 Dec 2003 16:23:37 -0000	1.2
+++ refclock_palisade.c	13 Mar 2005 04:36:25 -0000
@@ -496,7 +496,7 @@
 			return 0;
 		}
=20
-		pp->nsec =3D (long) (getdbl((u_char *) &mb(3)) * 1000000);
+		pp->nsec =3D (long) (getdbl((u_char *) &mb(3)) * 1000000000);
=20
 		if ((pp->day =3D day_of_year(&mb(14))) < 0)=20
 			break;


--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)

iQCVAwUBQo5MQbOuUtxCgar5AQLLLQQAlU3kHWxaz902dtNjyWnmOYiPE7FwA02+
u381H6+UMgR8R02YSpMmstz/LzJm2mi8hGQhQd0ADfulzC8v9F/O1Eh/7vRbJuYB
iLzBAnlPfJRuiFnDd/I7iRCAjDdDxi4Uzi0r1K/bNzvKjqpSBLax2yVndqlSVTq4
A6ZqSsGikLQ=
=gQyL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24--