From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p8QH9H2t189391 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:09:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:09:12 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test timestamps before the epoch Message-ID: <20110926170912.GA32133@infradead.org> References: <4E778C51.7040100@redhat.com> <20110926112716.GA22382@infradead.org> <1317040069.3030.18.camel@doink> <4E80A1FD.8070400@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E80A1FD.8070400@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs-oss , aelder@sgi.com 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. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs