Hi Frank
We haven't contacted for a long time. Let's sort out the problem. The details are as follows:
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
**************************************************
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.
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.
Can you tell me if this modification is correct？
And the previous discussion is here.
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-nfs/msg76061.html
