Bug 176638

Summary:	strange timings.
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Dave Jones <davej>
Component:	e2fsprogs	Assignee:	Eric Sandeen <esandeen>
Status:	CLOSED WORKSFORME	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	kzak, pfrields, sct
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2008-01-08 18:35:02 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Dave Jones 2005-12-28 09:26:50 UTC

I fsck'd a volume and got this..

(04:08:30:davej@nwo:~)$ sudo fsck.ext3 /dev/ubf1
e2fsck 1.38 (30-Jun-2005)
/dev/ubf1 has been mounted 40 times without being checked, check forced.
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Pass 2: Checking directory structure
Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
Pass 4: Checking reference counts
Pass 5: Checking group summary information
/dev/ubf1: 945272/30654464 files (3.5% non-contiguous), 47183697/61277926 blocks
Memory used: 265k/0k (14k/251k), time:
-6582962482715820032.00/-6582962482715820032.00/-6582962482715820032.00


The 'time' fields look totally horked.  (They probably shouldn't be signed either)

Comment 1 Thomas Woerner 2006-01-02 11:19:27 UTC

Do you have a reproducer for me? I tried, but could not.

Comment 2 Dave Jones 2006-01-03 04:47:32 UTC

not really. That was against a 250GB drive with a few million files on it (It's
about 60% full)

I hit this on an x86-64 machine, but I don't know if it's unique to this arch..
Hmm. Could be a 64bit issue.. That number is a4a49e8000000000 in hex, with the
lower 32bits all zeros.

I can't explain why all three numbers are the same though.  And I still don't
have an idea why they would ever be needed to be expressed as signed numbers.

Comment 3 Eric Sandeen 2007-08-24 20:14:48 UTC

Dave, I knowit's a little late, but any idea if you were running 32-bit or
64-bit e2fsprogs on this x86_64 box?

Comment 4 Dave Jones 2007-09-24 18:29:55 UTC

Complete guess (as that box has been reinstalled n times in the last two years),
but I'd say it was very likely 64 bit.

Comment 5 Eric Sandeen 2008-01-08 18:35:02 UTC

After a couple years, nobody can reproduce... whatever it was, I have to assume
it was fixed.  :)