On 21 Jun 2024, at 12:22, cel@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> > > The double registration/unregistration I observed was actually the > registration and unregistration of two separate block devices: one > for /media/test and one for /media/scratch. So, that was a false > alarm. > > The complete fstests run shows: > > Failures: generic/126 generic/355 generic/450 generic/740 > > unknown: run fstests generic/108 at 2024-06-21 10:13:58 > systemd[1]: Started fstests-generic-108.scope - /usr/bin/bash -c test -w /proc/self/oom_score_adj && echo 250 > /proc/self/oom_score_adj; exec ./tests/generic/108. > kernel: sd 6:0:0:1: reservation conflict > kernel: sd 6:0:0:1: [sdb] tag#30 FAILED Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_OK cmd_age=0s > kernel: sd 6:0:0:1: [sdb] tag#30 CDB: Read(10) 28 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 > kernel: reservation conflict error, dev sdb, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 32 prio class 2 > systemd[1]: fstests-generic-108.scope: Deactivated successfully. > > These errors appear in the system journal only when the whole > fstests series is run. I can see the "block_rq_complete [-52]" in > the trace log. But the test output shows: > > generic/108 [not run] require cel-nfsd:/export/nfs-pnfs-fs-s to be valid block disk > > generic/450 is also failing: > > generic/450 - output mismatch (see /data/fstests-install/xfstests/results/cel-nfs-pnfs/6.10.0-rc4-gd24c98202dbe/nfs_pnfs/generic/450.out.bad) > --- tests/generic/450.out 2024-06-20 16:50:06.548035014 -0400 > +++ /data/fstests-install/xfstests/results/cel-nfs-pnfs/6.10.0-rc4-gd24c98202dbe/nfs_pnfs/generic/450.out.bad 2024-06-21 10:44:02.600634341 -0400 > @@ -8,4 +8,6 @@ > direct read the second block contains EOF > direct read a sector at (after) EOF > direct read the last sector past EOF > +expect [2093056,4096,0], got [2093056,4096,4096] > direct read at far away from EOF > +expect [104857600,4096,0], got [104857600,4096,4096] > ... > > However this might be a bug that existed before this series. > > The other three explicit test failures are usual for NFSv4.1. > > --- > Changes since RFC: > - series re-ordered to place fixes first > - address review comments as best I can Looks good, I like the bitops over the bool for pr_registered. For the series: Reviewed-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx> Ben
