On Thu, 2023-11-02 at 16:06 +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 02:17:13PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > With NFS in particular, we are usually testing with some mount options. > > Ensure that we preserve those and just add "nosharecache" onto the end > > of the string. > > > > Cc: Yongcheng Yang <yoyang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/generic/732 | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/generic/732 b/tests/generic/732 > > index 785aac58f361..ae49152e42dc 100755 > > --- a/tests/generic/732 > > +++ b/tests/generic/732 > > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ mkdir -p $testdir1 $testdir2 > > # Don't share the data and attribute caches among mount points for NFS. > > # This caching behavior is necessary to reproduce this issue as we're > > # checking the alignment of each mount point's own unique cache. > > -[ "$FSTYP" = "nfs" ] && MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o nosharecache" > > +[ "$FSTYP" = "nfs" ] && MOUNT_OPTIONS="$MOUNT_OPTIONS -o nosharecache" > > Good to me, and looks like the later option replaces the former one, if > there're same options (e.g. -o sharecache -o nosharecache). > > Reviewed-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks, Zorro. Now that I look more closely, I'm not sure this test will ever pass properly on NFS. It's basically doing this: client1: A/f -> B/f client2: B/f -> A/f client1: A/f -> B/f ...and the two clients aren't aware of the changes the other is making (because they were mounted using -o nosharecache). The 3rd rename ends up thinking that the B/f dentry is still positive, and the rename syscall fails with EEXIST. The really confusing bit is that this test passes against servers running older kernels, because the rename response had the wrong change info in it and that tricks the client into invalidating the directory caches when it shouldn't need to do that. We fixed that in fdd2630a7398 (nfsd: fix change_info in NFSv4 RENAME replies), and now this test pretty reliably fails when testing against modern nfsd. We have some longer term plans to add support for directory delegations eventually, which may make it easier to keep the caches more coherent, in this situation, but until then we might want to skip this test. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
