[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Nasty suprise with uptime
Mike Fedyk wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 12:31:12PM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
> > Say it ain't so! maybe I'm a bit dense, but is the 2.4 kernel also going
> > to wrap around after 497 days uptime? I'd be glad if someone would
> > point out the error in my understanding.
> Ahh, so that's why there haven't been any reports of higher uptimes... ;)

Yes, it all makes sense now -

Say, if the uptime field were unsigned it could
reach 995 days uptime before wraparound -

Surely nobody would mind having to upgrade
their kernel after 994+ days....

Well strictly speaking an upgrade isn't
forced, but if the (perceived) uptime is down
the tubes anyway, might as well update the
kernel, or the distro level for that matter.



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:11    [W:0.308 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site