After upgrading to iputils-20001010-1.i386.rpm (from the updates
distribution), every time
I run ping, to any host, I get the following warning printed:
Warning: no SO_TIMESTAMP support, falling back to SIOCGSTAMP
I don't know exactly what this means, but I guess that it's not very
important (does any Linux
kernel support this SO_TIMESTAMP option?), and it probably should not be
printed all the
If I remember correctly, this warning wasn't printed when I used Redhat 7's
(before the update came out).
This is the fix to bugzilla #15523.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15523 ***
I hope I'm not making an ass out of myself, but I reported a ping bug in your
newest ping update,
and you marked it as a duplicate of some old mgetty bug in an old beta
version... As hard as I
tried to look, I can't find a connection... Am I missing something, or is this
simply a wrong resolution?
You are looking at the message that results from a fix to negative time stamps
It turns out that there are 2 ways of acquiring time stamps, and, if time goes
then the 2nd method is used (with notification to user as reported by you).
I see, 15573, not 15523 as you wrote... Anyway, somehow I don't have permissions
to see bug
#15573 (!). Anyway, I still don't understand why the user should care about
these details seeing
this message everytime they use ping.
But I guess this is not a very important problem, so I guess you can reclose
this bug if you want.
So, what is the resolution to this bug?
It's annoying... is something actually wrong with the system? Is this related
to some other bug?
I have closed this bug as a duplicate of the other 'bugs' concerning this
explicit WARNING message.
As explaing in the bug threads in the other related bugreports this is merely a
problem with the 2.2 kernel which doesn't have SO_TIMESTAMP support.
As of 7.1 we ship the 2.4 kernel with the distribution, so you won't get the
warning anymore. And if you use ping on RH 7.1 with an old 2.2 kernel it should
still report that this kernel doesn't support this specific feature.
All in all you could either consider this bug to be closed as CURRENT RELEASE or
NOTABUG as well (it's not a bug, it's a warning ;).
Read ya, Phil
PS: If it REALLY bothers a lot more people i can easily remove this warning, but
i'd rather leave it in (people might then complain that they weren't warned! :)
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19952 ***