time.monotonic() roll over

[Chris Angelico]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Akira Li <4kir4.1i at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This seems like a lot of effort to unreliably design around a problem that
>> will matter to only a tiny fraction of users.
>
> - people's computers are mostly on batteries (laptops, tablets,
>   smartphones) -- "suspended from power management" use case
> - corporations's computations are mostly virtualized -- possible
>   "ressurected", "migrated" use case
>
> i.e., the opposite might be true -- non-virtualized PCs connected to AC
> are (becoming) minority.

That's a massive over-simplification, of course, but given that my
current desktop computer is running a dozen or so VMs for various
purposes (usually not more than 3-4 concurrently), I can't disagree
with you. However, there still are plenty of computers that are always
either fully running, or fully shut down; just because people _can_
suspend with applications running doesn't mean they _will_. (Quite a
few of my VMs, for instance, do not get saved/suspended - I shut them
down whenever I'm done with them. Even when I do suspend a VM, I often
terminate applications in it, and just use suspension to save having
to boot the OS every time. But that's partly because those VMs are the
ones running Windows for specific proprietary apps, and thus are
coping with the vagaries of those apps.)

In any case, it's not at all a problem to have the protection on
systems that won't actually need it. Much better than lacking the
protection on a system that does.

ChrisA