Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 May 1998 04:04:10 -0300 | From | "Garst R. Reese" <> | Subject | Re: 2.1.102 and APM -- is the patch correct? |
| |
C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > On Fri, 15 May 1998, Garst R. Reese wrote: > > > Hi Scott, > > I have a Laptop with APM. I removed the other #ifndef CONFIG_APM's and > > the #endif's to get 2.1.102 to compile. > > I then suspended and let it sit awhile, then did: > > date ; hwclock > > The two matched. (using apm-1.4) > > No, the relevant issue is whether you will get sporadic divide-by-zero > oopsen in your logs after long periods of idle time with APM enabled. > I don't think that 'date; hwclock' is a valid check. > > The correct solution is to replace the removed #ifdefs, not remove the > others protecting you. > --Scott It's been sleeping 2.5h, none yet. -- Garst
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |