From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p8QG29Hb181824 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:02:10 -0500 Message-ID: <4E80A1FD.8070400@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:02:05 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test timestamps before the epoch References: <4E778C51.7040100@redhat.com> <20110926112716.GA22382@infradead.org> <1317040069.3030.18.camel@doink> In-Reply-To: <1317040069.3030.18.camel@doink> 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: aelder@sgi.com Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs-oss 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. -Eric > > I haven't seen this one fail. Must have to do with > some FS configuration options (like blocksize or > something). > > -Alex > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs