> On Apr 25, 2019, at 10:44 AM, David Sterba <dste...@suse.cz> 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.ker...@gmail.com> >> --- >> 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. 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? -Deepa -Deepa _______________________________________________ Y2038 mailing list Y2038@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
