Any ping? 在 2019/8/6 16:23, Su Yanjun 写道: > Hi, Frank > > We modified the case according to Calum Mackay's suggestion (set the parameter lk_is_new in the second lock to FALSE) > > and the test result passed. > > But we don't know if this modification violates the test intent. > > Can you tell us your test intent? > > Because our email system has some problem so i copy Calum Mackay's reply here. > > From: Calum Mackay @ 2019-07-29 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw) > To: Su Yanjun, J. Bruce Fields; +Cc: calum.mackay, linux-nfs, dang, ffilzlnx > > hi, I don't think you would expect an unlock to delete the lock owner: > the client may want to do further locking with this lock owner (without > the lk_is_new bit set). > > The server would delete the LO when the client sends a > RELEASE_LOCKOWNER, or when the lease is expired, if it doesn't. > > cheers, > calum. > > 在 2019/7/9 13:27, Su Yanjun 写道: >> Hi Bruce >> >> 在 2019/7/8 22:45, Frank Filz 写道: >>> Yea, sorry, I totally missed this, but it does look like it's a Kernel nfsd >> Any suggestions? >>> 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. >> We are using the knfsd. >>>> >>>> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
