Re: FYI, new, rare failure on rawhide

2011-11-16 Thread Paul Eggert
The data that you gave are consistent with my guess, namely, that utimens is marking st_ctime for update, but that the update doesn't actually occur until after stat is called (a violation of POSIX). If my wild guess is right, increasing the nap time could mask the bug, as the update could occur d

Re: FYI, new, rare failure on rawhide

2011-11-16 Thread Jim Meyering
Paul Eggert wrote: > Possibly a bug in the file system or kernel? > An earlier part of the code does this: > > /* lines 57 and 58 of test-utimens.h */ > ASSERT (func (BASE "file", ts) == 0); > ASSERT (stat (BASE "file", &st1) == 0); > > and this relies on st_ctime being marked for updat

Re: FYI, new, rare failure on rawhide

2011-11-16 Thread Paul Eggert
Possibly a bug in the file system or kernel? An earlier part of the code does this: /* lines 57 and 58 of test-utimens.h */ ASSERT (func (BASE "file", ts) == 0); ASSERT (stat (BASE "file", &st1) == 0); and this relies on st_ctime being marked for update in the first line, and being ac

FYI, new, rare failure on rawhide

2011-11-16 Thread Jim Meyering
FYI, I'm seeing this in a rawhide VM using ext4, but only twice, and since then 20 trials with no failure. FAIL: test-fdutimensat (exit: 134) == test-utimens.h:109: assertion failed It never fails when run by itself. I.e., the failure happens only when