On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 06:32:09PM +0000, Thomas Haynes wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> In this test:
>
> def testReplayCache006(t, env):
> """Send two solo sequence compounds with same seqid
>
> FLAGS: sequence all
> CODE: SEQ9f
> """
> c = env.c1.new_client(env.testname(t))
> sess = c.create_session()
> res1 = sess.compound([])
> check(res1)
> res2 = sess.compound([], cache_this=True, seq_delta=0)
> check(res2)
> res1.tag = res2.tag = ""
> if not nfs4lib.test_equal(res1, res2):
> fail("Replay results not equal")
>
> I don't see why the result should be NFS4_OK.
>
> The first compound does not set sa_cachethis and the second
> does set it. According to RFC5661, the server is not required
> to cache the first request if the client does not request it.
>
> And if the server does not cache the response, when it gets
> a request to replay it, it can return NFS4ERR_RETRY_UNCACHED_REP:
If I'm reading that section correctly, it can't return
NFS4ERR_RETRY_UNCACHED_REP, that can only be returned on the next op of
the compound (and there is no next op in this case, only the one
SEQUENCE).
So I *think* the only correct options OK or FALSE_RETRY?
> I'm not sure if the test should be fixed to either
>
> 1) allow either NFS4_OK or NFS4ERR_RETRY_UNCACHED_REP
> 2) just remove the test.
Maybe just add cache_this to the first?
Looks like the following test is off too--I think a server's allowed to
return a cached reply instead of RETRY_UNCACHED_REP?
--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
