| To: | Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix timestamp handling in xfs_setattr |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 6 Jan 2010 11:54:28 -0500 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1AB9A794DBDDF54A8A81BE2296F7BDFE012A6913@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20091223160913.GA13039@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1AB9A794DBDDF54A8A81BE2296F7BDFE012A6913@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:02:02PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote: > This looks good to me, although I acknowledge I haven't worked through > it 100%. Another reviewer would be good. But even better, I really > want to see the gnulib timestamp unit tests into xfstests to verify > the behavior either way (which you indicated you'd work on...). In > fact, if you've made any headway on it I'd like to run the tests against > this patch before committing it. I already have the original testcase wired up for xfstests, I just need to send out the patch after fixing some more bits. I haven't looked at the whole gnulib timestamp tests yet. Note that we'd need to look for an older GPLv2 version to not create even more licencing mess. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add another fallocate test to 214, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH V3] sort: Introduce generic list_sort function, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: [PATCH] xfs: fix timestamp handling in xfs_setattr, Alex Elder |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs 2.6.31.9 error - possibly SOLVED, DS |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |