xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test timestamps before the epoch

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test timestamps before the epoch
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:09:12 -0400
Cc: aelder@xxxxxxx, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4E80A1FD.8070400@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4E778C51.7040100@xxxxxxxxxx> <20110926112716.GA22382@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1317040069.3030.18.camel@doink> <4E80A1FD.8070400@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:02:05AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/26/11 7:27 AM, Alex Elder wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 07:27 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> This one actually ends up failing on XFS for me:
> >>
> >> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> >>  QA output created by 258
> >>  Creating file with timestamp of Jan 1, 1960
> >>  -Stat of file yields: -315593940
> >>  +Stat of file yields: -315615540
> >>   Remounting to flush cache
> >>  -Stat of file yields: -315593940
> >>  +Stat of file yields: -315615540
> >>
> >> Note that we still get the same for both, it just seems XFS rounds it
> >> a bit different.
> 
> Hrm.  Should we just test to be sure the timestamp is negative?
> The sign extension is the real error, so as long as it's not
> positive it's probably OK.

Probably.  This is on a 32-bit userspae, I guess that's why I see
different results from Alex.

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