| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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