On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 16:52:28 +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >
> > Obvious workaround: could DEVFS be mounted read-only initially and then
> > re-mounted as read-write after adjkerntz started, in the same manner as /
> > remounted read-write, i.e. with "mount -u" ?
>
> No. devfs silently ignores
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 09:01:20 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I see no solving way until kernel will understand fully and can handle
> >timezone database format. It means timezone code should be integrated
> >into kernel. And for which reason? Only to heal DEVFS timestamps? Mount
> >workaro
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
>On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 00:16:24 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Can we stop considering workarounds, and instead work on solving
>> the problem please ?
>
>I see no solving way until kernel will understand fully and can handle
>ti
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 22:10:43 +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >
> > More precisely: some are mounted, but they are mounted read-only (modulo
> > the bug that adjkerntz is run a little after mounting filesystems read-write).
>
> Obvious workaround: coul
* De: "Andrey A. Chernov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-02-07 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Wrong date for DEVFS entries ]
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 00:16:24 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Can we stop considering workarounds, and instead work on solving
>
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 00:16:24 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Can we stop considering workarounds, and instead work on solving
> the problem please ?
I see no solving way until kernel will understand fully and can handle
timezone database format. It means timezone code should be integrate
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
>On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 22:10:43 +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
>>
>> More precisely: some are mounted, but they are mounted read-only (modulo
>> the bug that adjkerntz is run a little after mounting filesystems read-write).
>
>Obvious workar
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 22:10:43 +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> More precisely: some are mounted, but they are mounted read-only (modulo
> the bug that adjkerntz is run a little after mounting filesystems read-write).
Obvious workaround: could DEVFS be mounted read-only initially and then
re-moun
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 11:27:36 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
> > >On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 23:44:08 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 11:44:29 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Think diskless NFS, think MD(4) based root, think...
They are read-only at this rc stage, so something could be damaged are
access times only.
> I avoid it entirely by using UTC time in my RTC, but this is not an
> option for m
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
>> This is not any different from any other filesystem.
>
>No, it IS different - no real filesystems mounted at this point yet, so no
>real timestamps damaged.
Think diskless NFS, think MD(4) based root, think...
The only problem is
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 11:27:36 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
> >On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 23:44:08 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >2) Feb 6 01:36 (boot time)
> >> > >3) Feb
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
>On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 23:44:08 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > >2) Feb 6 01:36 (boot time)
>> > >3) Feb 6 04:36 (+3 TZ future jump)
>> >
>> > These timestamps have been touched, and
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 23:44:08 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >2) Feb 6 01:36 (boot time)
> > >3) Feb 6 04:36 (+3 TZ future jump)
> >
> > These timestamps have been touched, and the clock has made a 3 hour
> > jump either forward or backw
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
>On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 23:44:08 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >2) Feb 6 01:36 (boot time)
>> >3) Feb 6 04:36 (+3 TZ future jump)
>>
>> These timestamps have been touched, and the clock has made a 3 hour
>> jump either forward
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 23:44:08 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >2) Feb 6 01:36 (boot time)
> >3) Feb 6 04:36 (+3 TZ future jump)
>
> These timestamps have been touched, and the clock has made a 3 hour
> jump either forward or backward at some point.
>
>
> The problem is the clock jump,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
>On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 23:23:26 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Try to remove the three "fix" lines, and see what you get then.
>>
>
>Very strange effect: 3 kinds of entries appearse:
>1) Jan 1 1970
These are the intact untouc
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 23:23:26 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Try to remove the three "fix" lines, and see what you get then.
>
Very strange effect: 3 kinds of entries appearse:
1) Jan 1 1970
2) Feb 6 01:36 (boot time)
3) Feb 6 04:36 (+3 TZ future jump)
total 1
crw-r--r-- 1 root op
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
>On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 22:10:41 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> You can try this patch instead. It has a different side effect:
>> if you reset your clock the (untouched) timestamps will change.
>
>It not helps, see 00:48 -> 03:4
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 22:10:41 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You can try this patch instead. It has a different side effect:
> if you reset your clock the (untouched) timestamps will change.
It not helps, see 00:48 -> 03:48 future jump for some entries (00:48 is
boot time):
total 1
crw
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
>On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 20:52:54 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> My guess: Your RTC has the wrong time and ntpdate or similar stepped
>> your clock to be correct.
>
>It is each boot repeated effect, not one time.
>I run local cloc
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 20:52:54 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> My guess: Your RTC has the wrong time and ntpdate or similar stepped
> your clock to be correct.
It is each boot repeated effect, not one time.
I run local clock in BIOS and use adjkerntz(8) to correct kernel time to
GMT, via
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
>Look at the snapshot below, taken right after boot time. Most entries are
>at "Feb 5 22:34" which is boot time, but some other are "Feb 6 01:34"
>which is in the future! It looks like TZ offset added for them by mistake.
>Please fix thi
Look at the snapshot below, taken right after boot time. Most entries are
at "Feb 5 22:34" which is boot time, but some other are "Feb 6 01:34"
which is in the future! It looks like TZ offset added for them by mistake.
Please fix this bug.
total 1
crw--- 1 root wheel 152, 0 Feb 5 22
24 matches
Mail list logo
