Re: [Toybox] uptime -s
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 rounding to a second to do integer > math. > I'm personally ok with this. Is it breaking something for you? > > Rob > ___ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
Re: [Toybox] uptime -s
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 for you? Rob ___ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
Re: [Toybox] uptime -s
strace suggests coreutils reads /proc/uptime while busybox and toybox use sysinfo(2). On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 4:49 PM Ryan Prichard wrote: > > 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 13:58:29 > 2020-05-11 13:58:29 > 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 > > -Ryan > > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 4:33 PM enh via Toybox > wrote: >> >> 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, >> sounds about right. I should probably do that so the kernel has a >> chance to refresh itself for security whatsits. >> >> >> >> >> >> it was people wanting to avoid exactly that kind of shell gymnastics >> that made me add -s to uptime :-) >> ___ >> Toybox mailing list >> Toybox@lists.landley.net >> http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net ___ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
Re: [Toybox] uptime -s
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 13:58:29 2020-05-11 13:58:29 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 -Ryan On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 4:33 PM enh via Toybox wrote: > 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, > sounds about right. I should probably do that so the kernel has a > chance to refresh itself for security whatsits. > > > > > > it was people wanting to avoid exactly that kind of shell gymnastics > that made me add -s to uptime :-) > ___ > Toybox mailing list > Toybox@lists.landley.net > http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net > ___ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
[Toybox] uptime -s
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, sounds about right. I should probably do that so the kernel has a chance to refresh itself for security whatsits. it was people wanting to avoid exactly that kind of shell gymnastics that made me add -s to uptime :-) ___ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
