From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:39:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:39:24 -0500 Received: from freeside.toyota.com ([63.87.74.7]:46857 "EHLO toyota.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:39:08 -0500 Message-ID: <3BDDBE89.397E42C0@lexus.com> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:39:37 -0800 From: J Sloan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.13 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Cox CC: Linux kernel Subject: Re: Nasty suprise with uptime In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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