[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f105f5a8-d38f-a58a-38d1-6b7a4df4dc9d@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:20:21 +0800
From: Su Yanjun <suyj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To: <ffilzlnx@...dspring.com>
CC: <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Problem]testOpenUpgradeLock test failed in nfsv4.0 in 5.2.0-rc7
Ang ping?
在 2019/7/3 9:34, Su Yanjun 写道:
> 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