From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 400683858028 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:25:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 400683858028 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 12Q94pAN038889; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 05:25:07 -0400 Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 37h8kvedca-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Mar 2021 05:25:07 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 12Q9Bk1O024407; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:25:03 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37h14y08q4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:25:02 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 12Q9P06d25690542 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:25:00 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 596FEA4040; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:25:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25ABCA4053; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:25:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-ab9d22cc-354d-11b2-a85c-e984af76f811.ibm.com (unknown [9.171.2.19]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:25:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] S390: Don't test nanoseconds in io/tst-stat.c To: Adhemerval Zanella , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Joseph Myers References: <20210317130352.1782897-1-stli@linux.ibm.com> <1b859ba2-29bf-03f9-7b5d-db5b451857db@linaro.org> <7f30b64e-63f7-7f8d-17bb-134fc5ea102a@linux.ibm.com> <9cd84494-a984-0259-0d96-e3e81e1c343b@linaro.org> From: Stefan Liebler Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 10:24:59 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 In-Reply-To: <9cd84494-a984-0259-0d96-e3e81e1c343b@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: OWFP9r1AMRwzvl1UkIX53XSMBnBaYHSh X-Proofpoint-GUID: OWFP9r1AMRwzvl1UkIX53XSMBnBaYHSh Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.369, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-03-26_02:2021-03-26, 2021-03-26 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2103250000 definitions=main-2103260067 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, 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: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:25:11 -0000 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 >>> >> >> 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