Re: [xfstests PATCH 0/4] locktest: cleanup, bugfixes, and add new locking test

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 13 May 2014 08:58:45 +1000
Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:06:29AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > This patchset does some general cleanup of the locktest binary, adds
> > some infrastructure to allow testing F_GETLK requests, and adds a new
> > F_GETLK test to the pile.
> > 
> > The main impetus here is a regression that I caused in F_GETLK handling
> > for v3.15. The patch is making its way to Linus now, but I want to be
> > sure that it doesn't regress in the future.
> 
> So do these changes cause locktest to fail on older kernels? i.e.
> does changing the test cause the locktest tests to fail where
> previously they passed? If so, we're going to have to make this a
> little more complex...
> 

I haven't tested on much in the way of older kernels, but I wouldn't
expect it to cause any problems. The only behavior change that should
be introduced is the F_GETLK test, and older kernels should pass that
just fine (modulo v3.15 which has a regression that should be patched
soon). The rest of the changes are just cleanups, and shouldn't
introduce any behavioral changes.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs




[Index of Archives]     [Linux XFS Devel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux