On Mon, Feb 14 2022, David Bremner wrote:

> Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> writes:
>
>>
>> Looked notmuch-new.c -- time_t (seconds since epoch) is used as timestamp
>> comparisons (which would indicate the subsecond resolution most fs' provide
>> is not used)...
>>
>> ... and if so, I wonder why some of our tests are not failing all the time
>> for everyone...?
>
> Not claiming everything is fine, but there is code there targetted at
> the failure mode you mentioned:
>
>     /* If the directory's mtime is the same as the wall-clock time
>      * when we stat'ed the directory, we skip updating the mtime in
>      * the database because a message could be delivered later in this
>      * same second.  This may lead to unnecessary re-scans, but it
>      * avoids overlooking messages. */
>     if (fs_mtime != stat_time)
> 	_filename_list_add (state->directory_mtimes, path)->mtime =
>     fs_mtime;

Right. Very much explains why we don't see test failures...

> BTW, I have so far run the test suite 68 times in a row without failures
> on a Debian s390x host. The file system is ext4, mounted relatime. It
> would be interesting to know what file system is yielding the failures
> Michael is seeing.

indeed.

Tomi
_______________________________________________
notmuch mailing list -- notmuch@notmuchmail.org
To unsubscribe send an email to notmuch-leave@notmuchmail.org