xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: review: xfstests/192 atime test

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: review: xfstests/192 atime test
From: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:36:41 +1100
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <491A13CA.6010404@xxxxxxx>
References: <49192204.3040300@xxxxxxx> <20081111223810.GK2373@disturbed> <491A13CA.6010404@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914)
Timothy Shimmin wrote:
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 05:11:16PM +1100, Timothy Shimmin wrote:
>>> Attached simple atime test.
>>> 192.out and group file would be added appropriately.
>>> Thanks.
>>> --Tim
>>> _supported_fs xfs udf nfs
>>> _supported_os Linux
>>> delay=150
>> 150s sleep? It only needs a few seconds for this test.
>>
> Not for me. Passed every time at a few secs,
> that is why I tried longer as was originally reported.
> 
>>> time3=`_access_time $testfile | tee -a $seq.full`
>>>
>>> delta1=`expr $time2 - $time1`
>>> delta2=`expr $time3 - $time1`
>>>
>>> echo "delta1 - access time after sleep in-core: $delta1"
>>> echo "delta2 - access time after sleep on-disk: $delta2"
>> Why bother with deltas? if the numbers are the same, just output
>> "same", if they are different, output "different"....
>>
> Fine, will do.
> 
The only other thing is that I am not just testing the bug
as it stands - i.e. if the atime is being lost on-disk.
I want to test that the atime is updated appropriately.

--Tim

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>