Re: 2.6.37 and other things.
Geert Uytterhoeven dixit:
>On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 04:34, Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>> It doesn't matter what the clock says if root is read-only.
I think the problem is that the root filesystem is never really
read-only because the kernel does journal replays and things
like that, too eatly (there was quite some discussion around
this, and tytso never saw the error because he was west of UTC
or something like that).
>> What issue? Why not just run hwclock before filesystem checks?
>
>Isn't the check on the rootfs done _before_ hwclock runs?
I think that distributions run hwclock, check filesystems,
then run hwclock again, even. But, see above, it may not
be enough. I seem to recall an answer from that discussion
simply saying to “fix your clock”, so, it may be the kernel
that needs to set the correct time (and timezone).
Does the MacOS store the timezone, anyway?
(In BSD we have it compiled in the kernel… while that can
be changed on a compiled kernel like Linux rdev could, it
isn’t the nicest way either.)
bye,
//mirabilos
--
[...] if maybe ext3fs wasn't a better pick, or jfs, or maybe reiserfs, oh but
what about xfs, and if only i had waited until reiser4 was ready... in the be-
ginning, there was ffs, and in the middle, there was ffs, and at the end, there
was still ffs, and the sys admins knew it was good. :) -- Ted Unangst über *fs
Reply to: