On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 05:07:55PM -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 20:38 -0300, Ernesto A. Fernández wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 05:26:23PM -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > > > On Sun, 2018-10-14 at 13:35 -0300, Ernesto A. Fernández wrote: > > > > The immutable, append-only and no-dump attributes can only be retrieved > > > > with an ioctl; implement the ->getattr() method to return them on statx. > > > > Do not return the inode birthtime yet, because the issue of how best to > > > > handle the post-2038 timestamps is still under discussion. > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can see, the stable branch doesn't contain the inode > > > birthtime yet. So, I believe we have no troubles with it. > > > > What stable branch? What are you talking about? Of course the inode > > birthtime is in the code, how could it not be? > > > > I mean the latest stable kernel branch > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git). OK, that's the stable tree. I still have no idea why you are bringing it up, or what you mean by "doesn't contain the inode birthtime". > > > > > > > > This patch is needed to pass xfstests generic/424. > > > > > > Do you mean that the patch isn't been tested yet? Do it needs to wait > > > the testing result report before taking the patch? Otherwise, it looks > > > weird to have such remark in the comment section of the patch. > > > > Look, I'm not a native speaker either, but I think that's a pretty simple > > sentence. You need this patch if you want xfstests generic/424 to pass. > > > > Currently, it sounds confusing. I don't think it does, and I don't quite trust your judgement in the matter. > It makes sense to rework the comment > section and to resend the second version of the patch. > Thanks, > Vyacheslav Dubeyko. > >
