From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HK_RANDOM_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF838C606BD for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:37:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9163B204EC for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:37:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mindspring.com header.i=@mindspring.com header.b="C0z2//PQ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390963AbfGHPhF (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:37:05 -0400 Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.62]:50164 "EHLO elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387805AbfGHPhE (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:37:04 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 3099 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 11:37:04 EDT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mindspring.com; s=dk12062016; t=1562600224; bh=4OOkiuwW8V+PTmDuE0Rwtkk4e0OTemcwL0jX WxFGceY=; h=Received:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date: Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: X-Mailer:Content-Language:Thread-Index:X-ELNK-Trace: X-Originating-IP; b=C0z2//PQwvAaPR5lqRpizInzKglW/6dkh1Hc8luZD8SArZ NxCvAHtSoYRTvQ/TwavKHuPTySwLhbXJa8WhjmTnQQOFReTjgF4k4YcI3s85WAEAKHK C4DLiWR2Jp4VvrYAf1kNRIZ7/Ij2zoNE92SRxokWvCdXBZPEr7HMzZ28g/avLgOs35s btDyzyXRKE9lGOtfzuoEcqeKU1m2jwmvk3O1kmx0FrrdAOHl9cvUYNScKnRPVDGZcYy 7zT4Dkfer+lrCeV+imVmxwcYATnWXveqPWVQzpRtrEYT1wDWB0D1myMYjt87MHCjAdM cUNosdfQmfpY+UlHg9q5iogDV4Xg== DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk12062016; d=mindspring.com; b=JXJzGYy0XwS8OrUTBIxwMkvKRtlBpdq673OzRqva5mCmUHGdp1P9P0Ib92qgkWfvheVSo53Lz1YiTwhRKwboiNvGaEMXN50bfXgI9xN2xCUEmuTcR1Xa7JcCNySX3yH/cG2Mo4kAKh7MTH4B/sB1K2Sy9h0CHLW983hdds2IsoLDuo2kxJ9Y0W7KR5jSCuney13GHdQROTGxI9r4N+LNe8hAQm6uXkGZ8QlQzMSkKDrkgG924953js8O7bwk8TUDh7ixIjPkS2ZZ8NhmPKb7khFfR+eOuWGBDY4BqiMJ8v37dYbsLr4W6qLmYD6jCjUelFClhazSD82F9KobIQ1Zsw==; h=Received:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Language:Thread-Index:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [76.105.143.216] (helo=FRANKSTHINKPAD) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4) (envelope-from ) id 1hkUtQ-0008aX-Ai; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 10:45:24 -0400 From: "Frank Filz" To: , "'Su Yanjun'" Cc: References: <89d5612e-9af6-8f2e-15d8-ff6af29d508a@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <89d5612e-9af6-8f2e-15d8-ff6af29d508a@redhat.com> Subject: RE: [Problem]testOpenUpgradeLock test failed in nfsv4.0 in 5.2.0-rc7 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 07:45:24 -0700 Message-ID: <016101d5359b$c71f06c0$555d1440$@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Content-Language: en-us Thread-Index: AQKkmqnjdLO3N2oC5uaUDjK+FnrOigHO1BTBAduA8rSlBK8QgA== X-ELNK-Trace: 136157f01908a8929c7f779228e2f6aeda0071232e20db4d6876ba42899ed30ff202aea9961ba7bb350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 76.105.143.216 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Yea, sorry, I totally missed this, but it does look like it's a Kernel = nfsd issue. Frank > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Gryniewicz [mailto:dang@redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 6:49 AM > To: Su Yanjun ; ffilzlnx@mindspring.com > Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [Problem]testOpenUpgradeLock test failed in nfsv4.0 in = 5.2.0-rc7 >=20 > Is this running knfsd or Ganesha as the server? If it's Ganesha, the = question > would be better asked on the Ganesha Devel list = devel@lists.nfs-ganesha.org >=20 > If it's knfsd, than Frank isn't the right person to ask. >=20 > Daniel >=20 > On 7/7/19 10:20 PM, Su Yanjun wrote: > > Ang ping? > > > > =E5=9C=A8 2019/7/3 9:34, Su Yanjun =E5=86=99=E9=81=93: > >> Hi Frank > >> > >> 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 > >> ************************************************** > >> Is this normal? > >> > >> The case is as follows: > >> Def testOpenUpgradeLock(t, env): > >> """Try open, lock, open, downgrade, close > >> > >> FLAGS: all lock > >> CODE: LOCK24 > >> """ > >> c=3D env.c1 > >> C.init_connection() > >> Os =3D open_sequence(c, t.code, lockowner=3D"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. > >> Will nfs4.0 support 1) open-> 2) lock-> 3) unlock-> 4) lock this > >> function? > >> > >> > >> > > > >