Re: [PATCH] S390: Don't test nanoseconds in io/tst-stat.c

[Stefan Liebler <stli@linux.ibm.com>]

On 24/03/2021 18:40, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23/03/2021 13:13, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>> On 18/03/2021 14:31, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/03/2021 10:03, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>>>> Both new tests io/tst-stat and io/tst-stat-lfs (_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64)
>>>> are comparing the nanosecond fields with the statx result.  Unfortunately
>>>> on s390(31bit) those fields are always zero if old KABI with non-LFS
>>>> support is used.  With _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 stat is using statx internally.
>>>>
>>>> As suggested by Adhemerval this patch disables the nanosecond check for
>>>> s390(31bit).
>>>
>>> LGTM, the fstatat call does not call statx and even for LFS that call statx
>>> it might ended calling old stat syscall in the fallback part that does not
>>>
>>> About the __ASSUME_STATX note Joseph has raised, I think we should add it
>>> on Linux at least for fstatat64 implementation. However it does not really
>>> help on the fstatat one.  I will try to spare some time to make fstatat.c
>>> use statx as well, so we can tie the test to __ASSUME_STATX.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella  <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Adhemerval,
>>
>> Sorry for the delay, I was busy with another project.
>> Thanks for your series
>> "[PATCH 1/5] linux: Implement fstatat with __fstatat64_time64"
>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-March/124191.html
>>
>> As also mentioned there, with your series, at least on my s390 systems,
>> stat is then using statx and the nanosecond fields are not zero anymore.
>>
>> Shall I commit my patch as is and as soon as you've commited your
>> series, you can adjust support_stat_nanoseconds to return false if
>> __ASSUME_STATX is not defined?
> 
> Yes, I can rebase on top your patch.  I think we still need to handle
> the nanosecond missing support on older kernels.
I've just committed this patch.
> 
> Thanks for checking on s390, if you can review the patchset I would be
> grateful
Sure. I've left some comments

Thanks,
Stefan