From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965839AbXCLNOl (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:14:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965840AbXCLNOl (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:14:41 -0400 Received: from station18k.dscga.com ([192.24.222.18]:35064 "EHLO suzuka.mcnaught.org" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965839AbXCLNOl (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:14:41 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1382 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:14:41 EDT To: Gene Heskett Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Con Kolivas , amanda-hackers@amanda.org, Matt Mackall , Andrew Morton , ck@vds.kolivas.org Subject: Re: RSDL for 2.6.21-rc3- 0.29 References: <20070311013506.GD10459@waste.org> <200703121648.22734.kernel@kolivas.org> <200703120237.39477.gene.heskett@gmail.com> <200703120604.42776.gene.heskett@gmail.com> From: Douglas McNaught Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:51:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200703120604.42776.gene.heskett@gmail.com> (Gene Heskett's message of "Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:04:42 -0400") Message-ID: <873b4alj52.fsf@suzuka.mcnaught.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Gene Heskett writes: > If, and I have previously, I revert to a 2.6.20-ck1 patching, this does > not occur. So my contention is that someplace in this recent progression > from 2.6.20 to 2.6.21-rc3, there is a patch which acts to change how > c-time is being reported to tar. Or there is a spillage into c-times > when tar does its estimate scans where the output goes to /dev/null. > Or possibly even this version of tar is doing it differently. I just > looked up how to get the c-times out of ls, and they, as far as ls is > concerned, look sane. But tars actions while running a 2.6.21-rcX kernel > certainly are not. I do have a plain -rc2 I can try, so that will be the > next test. If that also fails in this manner, I'll build a later > 2.6.20-2 or whatever to verify that it doesn't so suffer. You may find 'strace' useful to track down this sort of thing (though the output can be voluminous). -Doug