On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:40:00PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:02 PM Darrick J. Wong > <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:34:57PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 10:25 PM Darrick J. Wong > > > <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > These two tests ensure we can store and retrieve timestamps on the > > > > extremes of the date ranges supported by userspace, and the common > > > > places where overflows can happen. > > > > > > > > They differ from generic/402 in that they don't constrain the dates > > > > tested to the range that the filesystem claims to support; we attempt > > > > various things that /userspace/ can parse, and then check that the vfs > > > > clamps and persists the values correctly. > > > > > > So this test will fail when run on stable kernels before the vfs > > > clamping changes > > > and there is no require_* to mitigate that failure. > > > > Yes, that is the intended outcome. Those old kernels silently truncate > > the high bits from those timestamps when inodes are flushed to disk, and > > the only user-visible evidence of this comes much later when the system > > reboots and suddenly the timestamps are wrong. Clamping also seems a > > little strange, but at least it's immediately obvious. > > > > It is very surprising that you could set a timestamp of 2 Apr 2500 on > > ext2, ls your shiny futuristic timestamp, reboot, and have it become > > 5 Nov 1955. Only Marty McFly would be amused. > > > > OK. So we can call it a bug in old kernels that is not going to be fixed > in stable updates. The minimum we can do for stable kernel testers is > provide a decent way to exclude the tests for clamping. > > I guess 'check -x bigtime' is decent enough. > I might have named the group 'timelimit' but I can live with 'bigtime'. > > So with fix for the rest of my minor nits, you may add: Ok, I've fixed them all. I also added warnings to 721 and 722 that the test is expected to fail on pre-5.4 kernels. Thanks for reviewing! --D > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks, > Amir.
