On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, David Weinehall wrote: > On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 11:16:56PM +0200, Markus H舖tbacka wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > > > In 2.6 there is no 497 days limit, as jiffies are now 64 bit. > > > > > Ok, I just would be intrested in a patch for 2.0 and 2.4 to get these > > jiffies to 64 bit. > > > By the way: Having a machine with more than 497 days of uptime normally > > > shows a serios lack of security awareness.. > > > > > I know, but running a 2.0.x machine with that kind of uptime isn't really > > that bad, thought if the machine has alot of accounts it wouldn't be that > > great idea. > > Well, you're soon going to reboot to install the upcoming 2.0.40, right? > And I promise to release 2.0.41 before you've had 497 days of uptime > with that one... :-) > Of course :) But when you'll stop releasing stuff, then it's time to see that :) > > But anyway, thanks for the information! > > > Regards: David Weinehall > -- > /) David Weinehall <tao _at_ acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander (\ > // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // > \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/ > Btw, when is it coming? :-) Markus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: Uptime counterDavid Weinehall
- Re: Uptime counterDavid Weinehall
- Prev by Date: Re: permission() bug?
- Next by Date: Re: Trouble with Cisco Airo MPI350 and kernel-2.6.1+
- Previous by thread: Re: Uptime counter
- Next by thread: Re: Uptime counter
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]