| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test timestamps before the epoch, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test timestamps before the epoch, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test timestamps before the epoch, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test timestamps before the epoch, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |