e associated test.
>
> Based on an off-list discussion, we use a simpler interim approach
> until fsinfo syscall would provide fs timestamp limits info.
> This isn't perfect, but works for filesystems expiring in 2038.
>
> Suggested-by: Amir Goldstein
> Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 10:09 AM Eryu Guan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:34:47AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 12:13 AM Deepa Dinamani
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Addition of fs-specific timestamp range checking was added
&
in 188d20bcd1eb ("vfs: Add file timestamp range support").
>
> Add a check for whether the kernel supports the limits check
> before running the associated test.
>
> ext4 has been chosen to test for the presence of kernel support
> for this feature.
>
> Suggested-by
ssociated test.
>
> ext4 has been chosen to test for the presence of kernel support
> for this feature. If there is a concern that ext4 could be built
> out of the kernel, I can include a _require_ext4() along the
> lines of _require_ext2().
>
> Suggested-by: Amir Goldstein
&
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 7:16 AM Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>
> Addition of fs-specific timestamp range checking was added
> in 188d20bcd1eb ("vfs: Add file timestamp range support").
>
> Add a check for whether the kernel supports the limits check
> before running the associated test.
>
>
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:28 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 9:46 PM Amir Goldstein wrote:
> >
> > I don't think there is a clear policy about being friendly to testing
> > less that master kernels in xfstest (Eryu?), but IMO we should try to
>
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:21 PM Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>
> I looked at this more closely. Here is the patch that added the sysctl
> to the kernel previously: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/2/300.
>
> This was meant to be configurable earlier. That is why this made
> sense. But, now it is not. We
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:21 AM Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>
> The mount behavior will not be altered because of the unsupported
> timestamps on the filesystems.
>
> Adjust the test accordingly.
>
> An updated series to be posted after the merge window is hosted at
>
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 6:46 PM J . Bruce Fields wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 09:31:45PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > Push clamping timestamps down the call stack into notify_change(), so
> > in-kernel callers like nfsd and overlayfs will get similar timestamp
> >
On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 9:49 PM Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 09:31:45PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > Push clamping timestamps down the call stack into notify_change(), so
> > in-kernel callers like nfsd and overlayfs will get similar timestamp
> >
# v5.4
Cc: Deepa Dinamani
Cc: Jeff Layton
Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein
---
Arnd,
This fixes xfstest generic/402 when run with -overlay setup.
Note that running the test requires latest xfstests with:
acb2ba78 - overlay: support timestamp range check
I had previously posted a fix specific for
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:16 PM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> Amir just send another patch dealing with the time stamps. I'd suggest
> you chime into the discussion in that thread.
That's right I just posted the ext4 style extend to 34bits yesterday [1],
but I like your version so much better,
12 matches
Mail list logo
