On Wed, 02 Jun 2021, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 04:01:08PM +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
>
> > LOCK24 st_lock.testOpenUpgradeLock : FAILURE
> > OP_LOCK should return NFS4_OK, instead got
> > NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID
>
> I suspect the server's actually OK here, but I need to look more
> closely.
>
I agree.
I think this patch fixes the test.
NeilBrown
From: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:50:37 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix NFSv4.0 LOCK24 test
Only the first lock request for a given open-owner can use lock_file.
Subsequent lock request must use relock_file.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
---
nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py | 11 +++++++++--
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py b/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py
index 468672403ffe..db08fbeedac4 100644
--- a/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py
+++ b/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py
@@ -886,6 +886,7 @@ class open_sequence:
self.client = client
self.owner = owner
self.lockowner = lockowner
+ self.lockseq = 0
def open(self, access):
self.fh, self.stateid = self.client.create_confirm(self.owner,
access=access,
@@ -899,15 +900,21 @@ class open_sequence:
def close(self):
self.client.close_file(self.owner, self.fh, self.stateid)
def lock(self, type):
- res = self.client.lock_file(self.owner, self.fh, self.stateid,
- type=type, lockowner=self.lockowner)
+ if self.lockseq == 0:
+ res = self.client.lock_file(self.owner, self.fh, self.stateid,
+ type=type, lockowner=self.lockowner)
+ else:
+ res = self.client.relock_file(self.lockseq, self.fh, self.lockstateid,
+ type=type)
check(res)
if res.status == NFS4_OK:
self.lockstateid = res.lockid
+ self.lockseq = self.lockseq + 1
def unlock(self):
res = self.client.unlock_file(1, self.fh, self.lockstateid)
if res.status == NFS4_OK:
self.lockstateid = res.lockid
+ self.lockseq = self.lockseq + 1
def testOpenUpgradeLock(t, env):
"""Try open, lock, open, downgrade, close
--
2.34.1
