[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c19db3b68063cd361c475aaebdd95a232aef710c.camel@dubeyko.com>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 10:51:43 -0700
From: Viacheslav Dubeyko <slava@...eyko.com>
To: 李扬韬 <frank.li@...o.com>, Viacheslav
Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@....com>, "glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de"
<glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 回复: [PATCH 2/2] hfs: fix to
update ctime after rename
On Wed, 2025-05-07 at 14:22 +0000, 李扬韬 wrote:
> Hi Slava,
>
> > +ERROR: access time has changed for file1 after remount
> > +ERROR: access time has changed after modifying file1
> > +ERROR: access time has changed for file in read-only filesystem
>
> > It looks like that it is not the whole fix of the issue for HFS
> > case.
>
> The test cases that failed after applying this patch are all related
> to the atime not being updated,
If I understood correctly "ERROR: access time has changed for file1
after remount" means atime has been changed.
> but hfs actually does not have atime.
>
But how the test detects that atime has been updated? If HFS hasn't
atime, then test cannot detect such update, from my point of view.
> So the current fix is sufficient, should we modify the 003 test
> case?
>
I don't think so. Probably, something is wrong in HFS code. We need to
double check it.
Thanks,
Slava.
> dirCrDat: LongInt; {date and time of creation}
> dirMdDat: LongInt; {date and time of last modification}
> dirBkDat: LongInt; {date and time of last backup}
>
> filCrDat: LongInt; {date and time of creation}
> filMdDat: LongInt; {date and time of last modification}
> filBkDat: LongInt; {date and time of last backup}
>
> Thanks,
> Yangtao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists