Re: [RFC] what should 'uptime' be on suspend?

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 09:54:37AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>
>>     
>  I assumed you had booted for a short time, suspended, resumed, and
> then noticed the uptime was longer than time since resume.
>
>  If you think there is a bug it might help to do a cold boot, at
> some point note uptime and then immediately suspend, resume some time
> later, immediately note uptime (including local time), keep it
> running, and later monitor uptime against local time (i.e. the local
> time will let you know the change you expect to see in uptime).  You
> might also want to confirm that the local time is maintained
> correctly.
>   
I resumed this morning, uptime before the suspend was ~4 hours, suspend 
time was ~30 hours, resume took 76 sec from power-on, uptime was 2m56s. 
As originally noted, the first time I did this the "uptime" after resume 
was 6+min. First noted on suspend to ram, this was suspend to disk to 
see if that changed anything.

Just an oddity, I guess if I care I can track it myself.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979