[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A2101D.5020400@tmr.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:54:37 -0400
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To: Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@...world.com>
CC: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel M/L <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] what should 'uptime' be on suspend?
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:42:15AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
>> man uptime:
>> uptime - tell how long the system has been running
>>
>> I claim that the system is not running when it is suspended,
>> so the suspension time should not be included in uptime.
>>
>>
> So, maybe I shouldn't have put corrected in inverted commas,
> because this was a real correction and my previous usage was an
> unintended side-effect of an error.
>
> Anyway, the current behaviour is known and I guess any attempt to
> change it (e.g. to what Bill was expecting) won't be well received.
>
So is setting it to a random number considered correct behavior? Any of
the first three values I mentioned would make sense, but the value I see
is neither time since resume, time since power-on to do the resume, or
any of the logical uptime values. That was the whole point of the
original post, the uptime reported makes no sense at all.
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@....com>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists