Alan Cox wrote:
> > and received a nasty surprise. The uptime, which had been 496+ days
> > on Friday, was back down to a few hours. I was ready to lart somebody
> > with great vigor when I realized the uptime counter had simply wrapped
> > around.
> >
> > So, I thought to myself, at least the 2.4 kernels on our new boxes won't
>
> It wraps at 496 days. The drivers are aware of it and dont crash the box
Yes, and these boxes are still running fine - other
than showing some processes that were started
in the year 2003... but DAMN, what an eyesore -
uptime ruined as far as anybody can tell, times
and dates no longer making any sense.
So, is there an implicit Linux policy to upgrade
the distro, or at least the kernel, every 496 days
whether it needs it or not?
;-)
cu
jjs
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 31 2001 - 21:00:37 EST