From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2] copy_file_range03: comparing timestamp in tst_timespec_diff
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 10:59:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YTXYixG37nBTzhXk@yuki> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210906060020.3219023-1-liwang@redhat.com>
Hi!
> - updated_timestamp = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
> + timestamp2 = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
>
> - if (timestamp == updated_timestamp)
> + diff = tst_timespec_diff(timestamp1, timestamp2);
> +
> + if (!diff.tv_sec && !diff.tv_nsec)
> tst_brk(TFAIL, "copy_file_range did not update timestamp.");
So as we changed the code to sleep for 1.5 sec I guess that we can
expect the difference to be at least 1 second because:
- the minimal granularity is 1s in which case we will get exactly 1s in
the diff
- if the granularity is greater, we will get a bit more than 1s
So I would go for something as:
long long diff_us = tst_timespec_diff_us(timestamp2, timestamp1);
if (diff_us >= 1000000 && diff_us <= 2000000)
tst_res(TPASS, "...");
Which expects that the difference between timestamps is in a sane range
not that it just have been changed.
> tst_res(TPASS, "copy_file_range sucessfully updated the timestamp");
> --
> 2.31.1
>
>
> --
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] copy_file_range03: comparing timestamp in tst_timespec_diff
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 10:59:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YTXYixG37nBTzhXk@yuki> (raw)
Message-ID: <20210906085955.yAm7u0V_4gZBhoXhXJ2CcVrm66t0zvomWyey-c4qSmY@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210906060020.3219023-1-liwang@redhat.com>
Hi!
> - updated_timestamp = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
> + timestamp2 = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
>
> - if (timestamp == updated_timestamp)
> + diff = tst_timespec_diff(timestamp1, timestamp2);
> +
> + if (!diff.tv_sec && !diff.tv_nsec)
> tst_brk(TFAIL, "copy_file_range did not update timestamp.");
So as we changed the code to sleep for 1.5 sec I guess that we can
expect the difference to be at least 1 second because:
- the minimal granularity is 1s in which case we will get exactly 1s in
the diff
- if the granularity is greater, we will get a bit more than 1s
So I would go for something as:
long long diff_us = tst_timespec_diff_us(timestamp2, timestamp1);
if (diff_us >= 1000000 && diff_us <= 2000000)
tst_res(TPASS, "...");
Which expects that the difference between timestamps is in a sane range
not that it just have been changed.
> tst_res(TPASS, "copy_file_range sucessfully updated the timestamp");
> --
> 2.31.1
>
>
> --
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-06 8:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-06 6:00 [LTP] [PATCH v2] copy_file_range03: comparing timestamp in tst_timespec_diff Li Wang
2021-09-06 6:00 ` Li Wang
2021-09-06 7:54 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-09-06 7:54 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-09-06 8:59 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2021-09-06 8:59 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-09-06 10:35 ` Li Wang
2021-09-06 10:35 ` Li Wang
2021-09-06 10:38 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-09-06 10:38 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-09-06 10:42 ` Li Wang
2021-09-06 10:42 ` Li Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YTXYixG37nBTzhXk@yuki \
--to=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.