On Sunday, June 12, 2011, Justin P. Mattock wrote: > 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!! I'm not sure what you mean? _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
