On Wed, 2025-05-28 at 16:56 +0000, 李扬韬 wrote:
> Hi Slava,
>
> > I am slightly confused by comment. Does it mean that the fix introduces more errors? It looks like we need to have more clear explanation of the fix here.
>
> How about below commit msg.
>
> We don't support atime updates of any kind,
> because hfs actually does not have atime.
>
> 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}
>
> W/O patch(xfstest generic/003):
>
> +ERROR: access time has changed for file1 after remount
> +ERROR: access time has changed after modifying file1
> +ERROR: change time has not been updated after changing file1
> +ERROR: access time has changed for file in read-only filesystem
>
> W/ patch(xfstest generic/003):
>
> +ERROR: access time has not been updated after accessing file1 first time
The +ERROR sounds for me that generic/003 ends with error or failed. So, what
are we trying to say here?
The comment looks like that we had 4 errors before the fix and we have 6 errors
after the fix. It sounds strange. :)
Thanks,
Slava.
> +ERROR: access time has not been updated after accessing file2
> +ERROR: access time has changed after modifying file1
> +ERROR: change time has not been updated after changing file1
> +ERROR: access time has not been updated after accessing file3 second time
> +ERROR: access time has not been updated after accessing file3 third time
>
> With this patch, we do not accept changes to atime under any circumstances.
