Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 18:28:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 18:27:53 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-194-239-202.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.194.239.202]:19963 "EHLO mmp-linux.matchmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 18:27:41 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:28:09 -0800 From: Mike Fedyk To: J Sloan Cc: Linux kernel Subject: Re: Nasty suprise with uptime Message-ID: <20011029152809.H20280@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> Mail-Followup-To: J Sloan , Linux kernel In-Reply-To: <3BDDBC90.7E16E492@lexus.com> <20011029151036.F20280@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> <3BDDE422.938C1D95@lexus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3BDDE422.938C1D95@lexus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 03:20:02PM -0800, 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 - > Just imagine the headline: Kernel 2.6 now allows uptimes higher than 1.47 years! _Click_Here_ *Click* ......... The change was origionally included in 2.5.4, which was origionally known as 2.4.14... ;) - 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/