From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99C65C021B3 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:17:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A833C678D for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:17:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (in-6.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BE283C280D for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:17:30 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-6.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=chrubis@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32B4914004EE for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:17:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AABA41F38D; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:17:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1740050248; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mRcKELZ/ue9QG1MgZLLVDRq16ysdlTejs4dxKgAKD1g=; b=pPn4pkKZfMKiWBUcnh8DJ/UVOp0hSd3ZSOEeVQTOvaiD/1ismi2joZyztQjGkGnU7VuDqQ /BZ8pmmE+6weFUCEFvPwD5qh6vW6qTKbqDJe2j3kR95WQ9exDTXIlh4KiAvcVOX6fBuh2l WMBGMoJ6tjfaYkHM1KAkPNSw99JQBs0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1740050248; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mRcKELZ/ue9QG1MgZLLVDRq16ysdlTejs4dxKgAKD1g=; b=a09HYPoMIHeWASflIdpZkojQo+qTRNmaTRDntRGHTD5v/MHP/cOVX382kXJshUHqzGukvH xmDbQXi9KRrF6rAg== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=pPn4pkKZ; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=a09HYPoM DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1740050248; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mRcKELZ/ue9QG1MgZLLVDRq16ysdlTejs4dxKgAKD1g=; b=pPn4pkKZfMKiWBUcnh8DJ/UVOp0hSd3ZSOEeVQTOvaiD/1ismi2joZyztQjGkGnU7VuDqQ /BZ8pmmE+6weFUCEFvPwD5qh6vW6qTKbqDJe2j3kR95WQ9exDTXIlh4KiAvcVOX6fBuh2l WMBGMoJ6tjfaYkHM1KAkPNSw99JQBs0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1740050248; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mRcKELZ/ue9QG1MgZLLVDRq16ysdlTejs4dxKgAKD1g=; b=a09HYPoMIHeWASflIdpZkojQo+qTRNmaTRDntRGHTD5v/MHP/cOVX382kXJshUHqzGukvH xmDbQXi9KRrF6rAg== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C3D613A42; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:17:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id QKfJIEgPt2cOGgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:17:28 +0000 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:17:36 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Jan Stancek Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AABA41F38D X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.51 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.cz:+]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:25478, ipnet:::/0, country:RU]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo, imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:rdns, suse.cz:dkim, suse.cz:email] X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-6.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/utime03: relax the check for 1 second difference X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: liwan@redhat.com, ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi! > The test is using tst_get_fs_timestamp() which is using REALTIME_COARSE > clock, which is slightly less accurate. Back in 2022 we added extra log > message to print also min and max time. In those rare instances where > it fails this extra log shows it failed by one second difference. > > Relax the check a little. Tested on aarch64 VMs, where it's usually > reproducible after couple hundred iterations. Aren't we just masking a kernel bug here? Back then we discussed this with kernel devs and they told us that filesystems use REALTIME_COARSE internally, so this shouldn't really fail. What filesystem is this? Does it, by chance, use more granual timestamps? -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp