Re: review: xfstests/192 atime test

[Timothy Shimmin <tes@sgi.com>]

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
> 

Ping?
Not fussed?

Thanks,
--Tim

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs