On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 08:35:05PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > 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. Is this the regression in question? +Server failure in 29:Verify that F_GETLK for F_WRLCK doesn't require that file be opened for write Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
