On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 1:37 AM Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Fixes the issue caused by the fact that in C in the expression
> of the form -1234L only 1234L is the actual literal, the unary
> minus is an operation applied to the literal. Which means that
> to express the lower bound for the type one has to negate the
> upper bound and subtract 1.
> Original error:
> Expected test_data[i].expected.tv_sec == timestamp.tv_sec, but
> test_data[i].expected.tv_sec == -2147483648
> timestamp.tv_sec == 2147483648
> 1901-12-13 Lower bound of 32bit < 0 timestamp, no extra bits: msb:1
> lower_bound:1 extra_bits: 0
> Expected test_data[i].expected.tv_sec == timestamp.tv_sec, but
> test_data[i].expected.tv_sec == 2147483648
> timestamp.tv_sec == 6442450944
> 2038-01-19 Lower bound of 32bit <0 timestamp, lo extra sec bit on:
> msb:1 lower_bound:1 extra_bits: 1
> Expected test_data[i].expected.tv_sec == timestamp.tv_sec, but
> test_data[i].expected.tv_sec == 6442450944
> timestamp.tv_sec == 10737418240
> 2174-02-25 Lower bound of 32bit <0 timestamp, hi extra sec bit on:
> msb:1 lower_bound:1 extra_bits: 2
> not ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> not ok 1 - ext4_inode_test
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks, test succeeds (on m68k, arm32, and arm64)!
Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
