Re: Obsolete test? (Was: Re: [PATCH v3] generic/390: Add tests for inode timestamp policy)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]



> On Apr 25, 2019, at 10:44 AM, David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 07:51:11PM -0800, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>> The test helps to validate clamping and mount behaviors
>> according to supported file system timestamp ranges.
>>
>> Note that the test can fail on 32-bit systems for a
>> few file systems. This will be corrected when vfs is
>> transitioned to use 64-bit timestamps.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> The branch of the kernel tree can be located at
>>
>> https://github.com/deepa-hub/vfs refs/heads/vfs_timestamp_policy
>
> It's 2019 and the functionality hasn't been merged to kernel, but maybe
> there's a replacement I have missed.
>
>> +# timestamp ranges support.
>> +_require_y2038()
>> +{
>> +    local device=${1:-$TEST_DEV}
>> +    local sysfsdir=/proc/sys/fs/fs-timestamp-check-on
>> +
>> +    if [ ! -e $sysfsdir ]; then
>> +        _notrun "no kernel support for y2038 sysfs switch"
>> +    fi
>
> This will always fail, so either the kernel functionality gets merged or
> the test dropped. Can you let us know the status? Thanks.

I’m posting a more comprehensive kernel series (~35 patches) for this
in a week or so. This test was requested as a prerequisite to merge
the series:
https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/y2038/2016-November/001981.html
There have been 5 versions of patches posted since then. It has been a
little difficult to get these reviewed.

The series makes more sense now anyway as we finally have 64 bit
timestamps for vfs.
If the test is a precondition, then we should still keep it?

-Deepa

-Deepa




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux