No, it's fine with me.
-Ryan
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:38 PM Rob Landley wrote:
> On 5/14/20 6:48 PM, Ryan Prichard via Toybox wrote:
> > FWIW, the GNU "uptime -s" reports my seconds as 31, whereas busybox and
> toybox
> > alternate between 29 and 30.
>
> It's ignoring the fractional part and
On 5/14/20 6:48 PM, Ryan Prichard via Toybox wrote:
> FWIW, the GNU "uptime -s" reports my seconds as 31, whereas busybox and toybox
> alternate between 29 and 30.
It's ignoring the fractional part and rounding to a second to do integer math.
I'm personally ok with this. Is it breaking something
-s
> 2020-05-11 13:58:31
>
> $ for i in $(seq 5); do sleep 0.5; busybox uptime -s; /x/toybox/toybox uptime
> -s; done
> 2020-05-11 13:58:30
> 2020-05-11 13:58:30
> 2020-05-11 13:58:29
> 2020-05-11 13:58:29
> 2020-05-11 13:58:30
> 2020-05-11 13:58:30
> 2020-05-11 13:58:2
FWIW, the GNU "uptime -s" reports my seconds as 31, whereas busybox and
toybox alternate between 29 and 30.
$ uptime -s
2020-05-11 13:58:31
$ for i in $(seq 5); do sleep 0.5; busybox uptime -s; /x/toybox/toybox
uptime -s; done
2020-05-11 13:58:30
2020-05-11 13:58:30
2020-05-11 13:58:
http://landley.net/notes.html#02-05-2020
Let's see:
$ cat /proc/uptime
11514340.14 18323433.75
Um, I'm guessing first number is runtime and second is suspend time
(in seconds) since last reboot, toybox date -d @$(($(date
+%s)-18323433)) says I last rebooted near the start of October. Yeah,
