[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: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:52:08 +1100
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <491A1709.9020705@xxxxxxx>
References: <49192204.3040300@xxxxxxx> <20081111223810.GK2373@disturbed> <491A13CA.6010404@xxxxxxx> <491A1709.9020705@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20080914)
Timothy Shimmin wrote:
> 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

Not fussed?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: review: xfstests/192 atime test, Timothy Shimmin <=