Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:54:37 -0400 | From | Bill Davidsen <> | 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@tmr.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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |