Re: Nasty suprise with uptime

[george anzinger]

J Sloan wrote:
> 
> 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 -

Actually 497 days is from the max jiffies in an unsigned int.  Up time
converts this to seconds... (HZ = 100) jiffies units are 1/HZ.

George

> 
> 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.
> 
> cu
> 
> jjs
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/