lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Time travel experiment?
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 06:25:28PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 September 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > > $ date
> > > > Wed Jul 3 23:09:23 CEST 2024
> > >
> > > Is this repeatable ?
> >
> > This wasn't the first suspend I've done today and I'd not seen it
> > before. I'll follow up if it does repeat, but I thought it was strange
> > and potentially important enough to at least report this occurrence. It
> > might ring a bell with someone.
>
> Oops. Yes, it is repeatable. Just had the same occur again.
> Not sure if I can trigger it reliably though or if it will still happen
> after a reboot.
>
> The jump occurs at the same point and to almost the same time/date:
> Sep 10 18:15:30 aragorn kernel: PM: Adding info for No Bus:vcs63
> Sep 10 18:15:30 aragorn kernel: PM: Adding info for No Bus:vcsa63
> Sep 10 18:15:30 aragorn kernel: wlan0: authenticate with AP 00:14:c1:38:e5:15
> Sep 10 18:15:30 aragorn kernel: wlan0: authenticated
> Sep 10 18:15:30 aragorn kernel: wlan0: associate with AP 00:14:c1:38:e5:15
> Sep 10 18:15:30 aragorn kernel: wlan0: RX ReassocResp from 00:14:c1:38:e5:15 (capab=0x411 status=0 aid=1)
> Sep 10 18:15:30 aragorn kernel: wlan0: associated
> Sep 10 18:15:30 aragorn kernel: PM: Removing info for No Bus:vcs63
> Sep 10 18:15:30 aragorn kernel: PM: Removing info for No Bus:vcsa63
> Jul 3 23:09:01 aragorn kernel: wlan0: disassociating by local choice (reason=3)
> Jul 3 23:09:03 aragorn kernel: wlan0: associate with AP 00:14:c1:38:e5:15
> Jul 3 23:09:03 aragorn kernel: wlan0: RX ReassocResp from 00:14:c1:38:e5:15 (capab=0x411 status=0 aid=1)
>
> One other thing with this last one. I had the system on AC this time,
> which means the screensaver was active. It was running at a crazy speed
> (much too fast). If I start the screensaver again now it runs at normal
> speed.

Note that the time jump is 500 million seconds in the future (498977611
to be precise). I don't know if it is possible that some value running
one unit has mistakenly been used in place of another one (eg: internal
clock ticks instead of jiffies, etc...).

Willy



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-10 23:31    [W:0.032 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site