Philip Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Theo de Raadt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Mark Kettenis wrote: > >> > I sympathise with the idea, but your implementation would still print > >> > "funny" times if your machine had been up for more than a day. > >> > >> The perils of rebooting. I tested with an hour, then bumped to a day for > >> margin. But really, I think even up to ten years would work. Any "date" > >> from > >> the 70s is far more likely to be an interval than a timestamp, no? > > > > The purpose of ktrace is to help debugging. > > > > As it stands right now, it is very unreadable. It is difficult to > > verify timestamps. > > I think it would be better to include the clock_t value in the > timespec struct tracing, then branch on that.
I of course looked at that, but it's a lot of plumbing...
