Yea, sorry, I totally missed this, but it does look like it's a Kernel nfsd issue. Frank > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Gryniewicz [mailto:dang@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 6:49 AM > To: Su Yanjun <suyj.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ffilzlnx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Problem]testOpenUpgradeLock test failed in nfsv4.0 in 5.2.0-rc7 > > Is this running knfsd or Ganesha as the server? If it's Ganesha, the question > would be better asked on the Ganesha Devel list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > If it's knfsd, than Frank isn't the right person to ask. > > Daniel > > On 7/7/19 10:20 PM, Su Yanjun wrote: > > Ang ping? > > > > 在 2019/7/3 9:34, Su Yanjun 写道: > >> Hi Frank > >> > >> We tested the pynfs of NFSv4.0 on the latest version of the kernel > >> (5.2.0-rc7). > >> I encountered a problem while testing st_lock.testOpenUpgradeLock. > >> The problem is now as follows: > >> ************************************************** > >> LOCK24 st_lock.testOpenUpgradeLock : FAILURE > >> OP_LOCK should return NFS4_OK, instead got > >> NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID > >> ************************************************** > >> Is this normal? > >> > >> The case is as follows: > >> Def testOpenUpgradeLock(t, env): > >> """Try open, lock, open, downgrade, close > >> > >> FLAGS: all lock > >> CODE: LOCK24 > >> """ > >> c= env.c1 > >> C.init_connection() > >> Os = open_sequence(c, t.code, lockowner="lockowner_LOCK24") > >> Os.open(OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ) > >> Os.lock(READ_LT) > >> Os.open(OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE) > >> Os.unlock() > >> Os.downgrade(OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE) > >> Os.lock(WRITE_LT) > >> Os.close() > >> > >> After investigation, there was an error in unlock->lock. When > >> unlocking, the lockowner of the file was not released, causing an > >> error when locking again. > >> Will nfs4.0 support 1) open-> 2) lock-> 3) unlock-> 4) lock this > >> function? > >> > >> > >> > > > >
