Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> This is true (the system time coming from the BIOS) with hwclock.
> That's what "hwclock --hctosys" reads from, after all. I do not believe
> it's true without it; last I knew, without hwclock, the system would
> start at time zero. (But it's been many years since I tried
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> But that raises the question of what that bootscript was trying to do
> in the first place? So, it turns out that the actions specified by
> 'RUN+=' udev rules can fail for any of a variety of reasons, and this
> script was simply there to retry such failed actions in the h
Hi all,
With the upgrade to Udev-173, we now see a warning that the call to
'udevadm trigger --type=failed --action=add' from S10udev is deprecated.
The thread starting at
http://www.spinics.net/lists/hotplug/msg05039.html goes into more detail
about the issues involved, but in effect, Udev'
Hi all,
With the upgrade to Udev-173, we now see a warning that the call to
'udevadm trigger --type=failed --action=add' from S10udev is deprecated.
The thread starting at
http://www.spinics.net/lists/hotplug/msg05039.html goes into more detail
about the issues involved, but in effect, Udev'
