Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:21:21 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Screwy clock after apm suspend |
| |
Hi!
> > If I do cli(); sleep(5 hours); sti();, system should survive that. If > > you do cli(); sleep(5 hours); sti() but fail to compensate for lost > > ticks, all sorts of funny things might happen if you are comunicating > > with someone who did not sleep. > > Then shouldn't it be fixed to compensate? > > By including suspend time in jiffies, there becomes absolutely no > way for a kernel or userspace thread to measure actual usable system > time. At least if suspend time is not counted, they can use jiffies > or xtime depending on what they want to do. Making them one and the > same gives them no choice.
I do not think anyone should know about "actual usable system time". If you do cli(); sleep(5hours); sti(), you include that in jiffies, too. I do not see why swsusp should be handled differently.
Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |