Re: 2.1.102 and APM -- is the patch correct?
Garst R. Reese (email@example.com)
Fri, 15 May 1998 04:04:10 -0300
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 1998, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> > Hi Scott,
> > I have a Laptop with APM. I removed the other #ifndef CONFIG_APM's and
> > the #endif's to get 2.1.102 to compile.
> > I then suspended and let it sit awhile, then did:
> > date ; hwclock
> > The two matched. (using apm-1.4)
> No, the relevant issue is whether you will get sporadic divide-by-zero
> oopsen in your logs after long periods of idle time with APM enabled.
> I don't think that 'date; hwclock' is a valid check.
> The correct solution is to replace the removed #ifdefs, not remove the
> others protecting you.
It's been sleeping 2.5h, none yet.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org