[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Workaround for invalid firmware-date values
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:10:28PM +0000, Julio Merino wrote:
> Should we care? I think it's clearer to the reader if the code says 70
> (i.e. the epoch) instead of a seemingly-random value. We are not going
> to hit those cases anyway...
I don't think it is cleaner - what do DMI dates have to do with the unix
epoch? The previous value (1990) was fine. However, I surely hope that we
won't care about DMI compatible machines manufactured 2070 or later.
Main Index |
Thread Index |