On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 02:23:55PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > 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. Ok, understood. > 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? Yeah, in that case keep it. The kernel patches are on the way to mainline and strftime("%Y") is still less then 2038. Thanks.
