Any ping? >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
