Re: 回复: [PATCH v2 2/3] hfs: correct superblock flags

[Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com>]

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.