[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a4ff6e56-09d6-1943-8d71-91eaa418bd1e@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:34:02 +0800
From: Su Yanjun <suyj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To: <ffilzlnx@...dspring.com>
CC: <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [Problem]testOpenUpgradeLock test failed in nfsv4.0 in 5.2.0-rc7
Hi Frank
We tested the pynfs of NFSv4.0 on the latest version of the kernel
(5.2.0-rc7).
I encountered a problem while testing st_lock.testOpenUpgradeLock. The
problem is now as follows:
**************************************************
LOCK24 st_lock.testOpenUpgradeLock : FAILURE
OP_LOCK should return NFS4_OK, instead got
NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID
**************************************************
Is this normal?
The case is as follows:
Def testOpenUpgradeLock(t, env):
"""Try open, lock, open, downgrade, close
FLAGS: all lock
CODE: LOCK24
"""
c= env.c1
C.init_connection()
Os = open_sequence(c, t.code, lockowner="lockowner_LOCK24")
Os.open(OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ)
Os.lock(READ_LT)
Os.open(OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE)
Os.unlock()
Os.downgrade(OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE)
Os.lock(WRITE_LT)
Os.close()
After investigation, there was an error in unlock->lock. When unlocking,
the lockowner of the file was not released, causing an error when
locking again.
Will nfs4.0 support 1) open-> 2) lock-> 3) unlock-> 4) lock this function?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists