On Mon, Feb 14 2022, David Bremner wrote: > Tomi Ollila <tomi.oll...@iki.fi> writes: > >> >> Looked notmuch-new.c -- time_t (seconds since epoch) is used as timestamp >> comparisons (which would indicate the subsecond resolution most fs' provide >> is not used)... >> >> ... and if so, I wonder why some of our tests are not failing all the time >> for everyone...? > > Not claiming everything is fine, but there is code there targetted at > the failure mode you mentioned: > > /* If the directory's mtime is the same as the wall-clock time > * when we stat'ed the directory, we skip updating the mtime in > * the database because a message could be delivered later in this > * same second. This may lead to unnecessary re-scans, but it > * avoids overlooking messages. */ > if (fs_mtime != stat_time) > _filename_list_add (state->directory_mtimes, path)->mtime = > fs_mtime;
Right. Very much explains why we don't see test failures... > BTW, I have so far run the test suite 68 times in a row without failures > on a Debian s390x host. The file system is ext4, mounted relatime. It > would be interesting to know what file system is yielding the failures > Michael is seeing. indeed. Tomi _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list -- notmuch@notmuchmail.org To unsubscribe send an email to notmuch-le...@notmuchmail.org
