From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:51310 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725954AbfDZL3t (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:29:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:30:52 +0200 From: David Sterba Subject: Re: Obsolete test? (Was: Re: [PATCH v3] generic/390: Add tests for inode timestamp policy) Message-ID: <20190426113052.GO20156@suse.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <1483501871-15389-1-git-send-email-deepa.kernel@gmail.com> <20190425174453.GN20156@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Deepa Dinamani Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , y2038 Mailman List List-ID: On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 02:23:55PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > On Apr 25, 2019, at 10:44 AM, David Sterba 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 > >> --- > >> 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 may= be > > there's a replacement I have missed. > > > >> +# timestamp ranges support. > >> +_require_y2038() > >> +{ > >> + local device=3D${1:-$TEST_DEV} > >> + local sysfsdir=3D/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. >=20 > I=E2=80=99m posting a more comprehensive kernel series (~35 patches) fo= r 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.