From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-x734.google.com (mail-qk1-x734.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::734]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EFC7388C015 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 13:55:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 6EFC7388C015 Received: by mail-qk1-x734.google.com with SMTP id d20so9259646qkc.2 for ; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 05:55:14 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:cc:references:from:subject:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SHbxx2/hF4NTzPfSGVqjQ5ZnbrAEkPnEsiZE2bHo5vo=; b=cEh/a7qEVD/kNKxobkra72gVcB/kzjnvFWRvqRvChKFdrOpERUXeV3njshEErx7mcw mtk2XUspZOJh61CXtM36ltLeWuUCc8QgcEAVJL6S4yCtjwpFG+8UO8PG/6gmT6rfA1Wb qEkqozErQob++5zUn128Ifwc9l24VOD66yHQSKnWkKwkVq6mCzy62BGwzwhclWbN2LGD gZXo1nOuNsz33z2f7ZmNQFSbQVIMTZ7YZ3gbhTEOKthkc5uOOpFLuEY2eZUMPsXxHOqB 8QSVjbqvRKgWk33lVwqp1sDp/7UUnUizY3bjsc0GXHbCqOexitC9RRnOvuP0af7tXHFH yCNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ALSALELzZHDjhhQTsJ+8T3lw2S1uiZEB31wcmSHD8DHoh2grb qd4jX6TujWiPLr0zEMZ8HRwDmA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8VF7Y5ht+TLMZtS+rCXGTlMrrupsE0titdRMa+WsCeDqAB+zYKr0RfPGDEs6v2/hYsC4F6g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:20d6:: with SMTP id f22mr19687980qka.104.1615211713920; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 05:55:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] ([177.194.48.209]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 131sm7767152qkl.74.2021.03.08.05.55.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Mar 2021 05:55:13 -0800 (PST) To: Florian Weimer Cc: Arjun Shankar , Lukasz Majewski , Joseph Myers , DJ Delorie , GNU C Library , Florian Weimer , Alistair Francis References: <20210225003509.7151-1-lukma@denx.de> <35562645.32965585.1614874667382.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <87ft199wf9.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <6e5c342c-77ff-6024-fe3c-fde015e40048@linaro.org> <87r1kpdahj.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> From: Adhemerval Zanella Subject: Re: [PATCH] tst: Add test for utime Message-ID: <51e962b2-cd02-40bb-f4ba-9b35827ca4f7@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:55:10 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87r1kpdahj.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 13:55:15 -0000 On 08/03/2021 10:46, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Adhemerval Zanella: > >> On 05/03/2021 17:29, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> * Adhemerval Zanella: >>> >>>> Maybe fix the kernel or/and use a non buggy FS instead? IMHO the test is >>>> doing *exactly* is meant to do: trigger and expose an unexpected return >>>> from the kernel or the libc. I don't think hiding it using a different >>>> FS is the right thing to do on glibc testsuite. >>> >>> I disagree: We want to test glibc here, not file systems. Test outputs >>> are already difficult enough to interpret. We should not add known >>> FAILs that are very difficult to fix (reformat & reinstall with another >>> file system is definitely in that category). >> >> My take is since we are the first step to drive the proper y2038 support >> and it has time limit, it is better to fail hard and signal something >> is wrong either with glibc or kernel *now* so we iron out the issues >> instead of fail once users actually deploy glibc on system that are meant >> to handle y2038 issues. > > We know precisely what is wrong with XFS (and the other file systems > which need to change their disk layout). No one gains from testing this > during glibc builds. No, but indicates that your system need to be fixed if you intend to deploy a y2038 binaries on it. > > Again, I do not suggest not to test this, but rather use a path which is > required to use a specific file system (tmpfs), so that the test outcome > is more predictable. The glibc side and the higher VFS layers in the > kernel are still fully covered if we use tmpfs, so I do not think this > reduces coverage as far as glibc is concerned. What if kernel introduce a regression on tmpfs or any other filesystem, should we gloss over to use a different filesystem instead? Or should we add a routine to check for the filesystem support for y2038 and disable or return unsupported instead? Also, this issue will most likely get fixed way before y2038 will actually be deployed. So I am not seeing the urgency here of avoid this kind of transient failures.