From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: Tuxera test suite failure for setfacl Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:19:54 +0530 Message-ID: <87vbwsbe31.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <87mwi69jas.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140205200801.GA31318@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Jan Kara , ext4 development To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.148]:50577 "EHLO e23smtp06.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932308AbaBFMuK (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Feb 2014 07:50:10 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp06.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:50:07 +1000 Received: from d23relay03.au.ibm.com (d23relay03.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.21]) by d23dlp03.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5C5357805A for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:50:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s16CnpM611928048 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:49:51 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s16Co4r3023047 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:50:04 +1100 In-Reply-To: <20140205200801.GA31318@quack.suse.cz> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Kara writes: > Hello, > > On Wed 05-02-14 11:45:39, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> With commit c6ac12a6159c802ae8b757dd13563564e64333df we are modifying >> the ctime of the file when changing file's permission by setfacl. The >> commit says that is correct as per spec. But we do have a test in tuxera >> http://tuxera.com/sw/qa/pjd-fstest-20090130-RC.tgz test/xacl/00.t 45 >> which expect the ctime to be not changed across setfacl. >> >> I haven't looked at the spec myself. Can you double check and make sure >> it is ok to change the ctime across setfacl ? > Well, it would be really strange if changing permissions via chmod(1) > changed ctime but via setfacl(1) did not, don't you think? > That make sense. I guess we should consider this a test case error. -aneesh