On Sunday, June 12, 2011, Justin P. Mattock wrote: > On 06/12/2011 05:12 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thursday, June 09, 2011, Justin P. Mattock wrote: > >> From: "Justin P. Mattock"<justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> sounds stupid, but taking a glance at the time, and seeing the wrong time, or what seemed > >> wrong in dmesg, caused me to go into total check the time clock panic mode.. So the patch below adds: > >> "UTC" Coordinated Universal Time abreviation to the printk so people like me dont flip out over the time! > >> > >> before: > >> [ 0.114915] Time: 1:47:03 Date: 06/09/11 > >> > >> after: > >> [ 0.114728] Time: 5:46:02 UTC Date: 06/09/11 > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > I suspect the goal is to mark messages printed by the PM trace code so that > > they can be easily distinguished from messages from other sources to avoid > > confusion. Why do you think it's a good idea to use the "UTC" string for > > this purpose? The time printed in those messages need not be UTC. > > > > It would be better to simply print "RTC time: ..., date: ..." IMO. > > > > Thanks, > > Rafael > > > > well.. if thats better, then thats better.. over here(people that dont > know what RTC time is) would not get so confused with a simple UTC or > PDT or whatever the time zone is but if RTC is bettr, then its better. My point is we don't know this time is always UTC, so we rather shouldn't label it as UTC unconditionally, should we? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
