[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test timestamps before the epoch
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:11:18 -0500
Cc: aelder@xxxxxxx, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20110926170912.GA32133@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4E778C51.7040100@xxxxxxxxxx> <20110926112716.GA22382@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1317040069.3030.18.camel@doink> <4E80A1FD.8070400@xxxxxxxxxx> <20110926170912.GA32133@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
On 9/26/11 12:09 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

could it be kernel clock resolution?

Anyway, I'll see about changing it to just check for negative nrs.


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