On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 01:27:28PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> This test sets up two independent superblocks with the same backend
> server, and then does RENAMES of the same files in the two servers. This
> is basically trying to simulate the case where two clients are competing
> to rename files in the same directory on the same server.
>
> This test would usually pass vs. an NFSv4 server that doesn't have
> dfdd2630a7398 ("nfsd: fix change_info in NFSv4 RENAME replies"), because
> the client would end up improperly invalidating the dcache for the whole
> dir after most RENAMEs.
>
> However, this test doesn't (and shouldn't) pass on NFS, because the
> client has no idea that a rename has happened on the second mount. The
> expected behavior for the NFS client is for it to use the cache timeouts
> in this case, which is what it now does with the above server bug fixed.
>
> Exempt NFS from running this test, since we don't expect it to pass.
>
> Cc: Yongcheng Yang <yoyang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
This case is written for a nfs fix at first. If nfs would like to skip this
test, I don't know if it makes sense to keep it in fstests?
Thanks,
Zorro
> tests/generic/732 | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/generic/732 b/tests/generic/732
> index 785aac58f361..5b5087d5accd 100755
> --- a/tests/generic/732
> +++ b/tests/generic/732
> @@ -22,9 +22,7 @@ _cleanup()
> }
>
> # real QA test starts here
> -_supported_fs generic
> -[ "$FSTYP" = "nfs" ] && _fixed_by_kernel_commit fdd2630a739819 \
> - "nfsd: fix change_info in NFSv4 RENAME replies"
> +_supported_fs ^nfs
>
> _require_test
> _require_scratch
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>
>
