On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:55:26PM -0700, Frank Filz wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:16:21AM -0700, Frank Filz wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:03:38AM -0700, Frank Filz wrote: > > > > > Why are we removing these two test cases? The Ganesha NFS server > > > > > at > > > > least passes them. > > > > > > > > And there's nothing wrong with passing the tests, but unfortunately > > > there's > > > > not necessarily anything wrong with failing either: a 4.1 server > > > > isn't > > > required > > > > to do a NULL callback to probe the backchannel. > > > > > > > > There might be a better test (depend on delegation recalls instead > > > > of CB_NULL's?), till then I'm OK with turning them off by default. > > > > > > I guess I'd at least like to see some explanation of why we're turning > > > the tests off by default. I'm just resistant to removing testing for no > reason. > > > > The story is: we turned off the CB_NULL probe in knfsd in the 4.1 case; > it's > > unnecessary, and it was causing some problems (due partly to other bugs, > > but why ask for trouble?). So these tests started failing. I'd fix the > server if > > there was an actual bug, but it's the tests that are wrong in this case, > so oh > > well. > > Ah, ok. I'd love to understand the issues there better, maybe Ganesha > shouldn't be doing the CB_NULL either... I've actually forgotten; the patches are from April so linux-nfs archives from around there might have some discussion. I think there was actually a bug in client callback handling that frequent unnecessary CB_NULL's were triggering. > > > If the test doesn't actually test anything useful, that would be one > > > explanation. > > > > > > If it's something that's not required and not all servers do it, then > > > that's another explanation. > > > > Right, this is it, CB_NULL probes aren't required. > > Ok, with this perspective, I'm cool with the test being removed from > default. > > > We're testing something useful, but something you need a callback to test, > > so trying to get some other kind of callback (like a deleg recall) would > be > > another option. > > Hmm, more to think about from testing Ganesha perspective. The "simple" > thing (i.e. using FSAL_VFS) to test in Ganesha doesn't do delegations, so > the CB_NULL might be the only callback it makes, which might make it > somewhat useful to prove Ganesha's callback code isn't totally broken... Yeah, for testing it's annoying that there's no reliable to provoke a callback. pynfs could probably be smarter about trying various methods, and also about reporting the difference between "X failed" and "I couldn't test X because I couldn't get server to optional thing Y". --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
