Hi Bruce, Trond, > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 01:32:09PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2020-07-20 at 11:14 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote: > > > > > > Reasons to drop: > > > > > > * outdated tests (from 2005) > > > > > > * not used (NFS kernel maintainers use pynfs [1]) > > > > > > * written in Python (we support C and shell, see [2]) > > > > > > [1] http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bfields/pynfs.git;a=summary > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/issues/547 > > > > > Unlike pynfs, these tests run on a real NFS client, and were designed > > > > > to test client implementations, as well as the servers. > > > > > So if they get dropped from ltp, then we will have to figure out some > > > > > other way of continuing to maintain them. > > > > Just for fun, I grepped through old mail to see if I could find any > > > > cases of these tests being used. I found one, in which Chuck reports an > > > > nfslock01 failure. Looks like it did find a real bug, which we fixed: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/8DF85CB6-5FEB-4A25-9715-C9808F37A4B1@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20160807185024.11705.10864.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Thanks for your explanation, this obviously justify these tests in LTP, unless > > > you want to move it to git.linux-nfs.org and maintain on your own. > > Actually, that fix 42691398be08 ("nfsd: Fix race between FREE_STATEID and LOCK") > > from v4.8-rc2 reported by Alexey Kodanev (LTP network maintainer) was found by > > nfslock01 test [1], which is integrated into other LTP NFS tests [2]. I'd > > definitely keep these in LTP. > Whoops, I don't know why I thought I saw nfslock01 in your patch. > Apologies. No problem at all, I at least had a second look and find missing runtest file. > > nfsv4 I proposed to remove as outdated and not being used are testing ACL [3] > > and fcntl locking [4]. ACL tests use rsh and aren't integrated into LTP > > framework (use their custom [5] runtest file thus I doubt anyone is using it). > > fcntl locktests are at least integrated into LTP (use fcntl-locktests runtest > > file[6], I forget to remove it in this patch). > > Both tests are written in 2005. I don't want to push for removal, if you see any > > use in it. > Looks like they may test some things (ACL enforcement, multi-client > locking), that our other test suites don't. That justify to have them, if they really test that properly. IMHO they need at least a cleanup/rewrite (no matter whether they stay in LTP or adopted by other project), but maybe write new tests from scratch might be easier. > On the other hand, if nobody's actually running them then maybe it's on > us to adopt them if we want them. (Not volunteering for now.) Even this brief review helped, thanks! Kind regards, Petr > --b. > > Kind regards, > > Petr > > [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/testcases/network/nfs/nfslock01/ > > [2] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/runtest/net.nfs > > [3] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/testcases/network/nfsv4/acl > > [4] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/testcases/network/nfsv4/locks > > [5] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/network/nfsv4/acl/runtest > > [6] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/runtest/fcntl-locktests
