On Fri, 2024-01-12 at 04:49 +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> 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?
>
>
It might make sense to keep this test in place for stuff like cephfs,
but if dropping it altogether is best, then that's fine with me.
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
