On 06/12/2011 11:35 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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 > sounds good to me!! _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
