[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150217202049.GN29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:20:49 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] locks: flock and lease related bugfixes, and remove
i_flctx counters
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:55:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Can we get that truncated series tested with some flock test suite? I
> assume there is *some* filesystem tester that tests some basic flock
> stuff, even if it clearly didn't catch the race due to the unlock in
> the middle..
LTP runltp -f syscalls does cover some of that; BTW, looks like fcntl11,
fcntl11_64, fcntl21 and fcntl21_64 in there got broken by something already
merged. Hadn't don bisect yet, but seeing
* NAME
* fcntl11.c
*
* DESCRIPTION
* Testcase to check locking of regions of a file
*
* ALGORITHM
* Test changing lock sections around a write lock
and
* NAME
* fcntl21.c
*
* DESCRIPTION
* Check locking of regions of a file
*
* ALGORITHM
* Test changing lock sections around a read lock
I'd say that file locking merge is most likely suspect...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists