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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 E5A1DC606BD for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 13:48:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C387320844 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 13:48:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731453AbfGHNsj (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2019 09:48:39 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f176.google.com ([209.85.160.176]:39094 "EHLO mail-qt1-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728423AbfGHNsj (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2019 09:48:39 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f176.google.com with SMTP id l9so9785243qtu.6 for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 06:48:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:to:cc:references:from :organization:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1TTIHuZjhEz5ZZvtNz4JkjvGSpRz80kMurP4N5bPxv4=; b=SROjIiWsqTbIupkTzG0DPQ9ScokmrostLZ5WjypIDLMUdILn/p5Ga04ZJaQWSWye2i pt09U3bzke1KTeJKpXFpySpLhcXax3mQ8QUbkjs8Z4fWnRH6VSXYPhZ6WsN2K383u9a4 z04bjDVpncSKRnd61uk8mAEhbU/YD2v/oFgERwmTawemiujWjz4LxfJUhRFc1wqxrO6z cLHDgK5mAqfIHUtoezq5Np6mmLvlOYS+oQGCcF5q5icM+ds+Pf4PMhaJCmMKhDPzSigh NhhzzlZyB2i82gT/V0FxQh4+8p5cPmVNaijOu43fIm7QQUNvr5xRxE1ukF7NSysQshXc QN6w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVUGBXL8/AhrWN79G96drGmx377nHKRnJqphMRx2nG2DTrJAyuz HMrHHrpbFDcKpPVnW2Grikyin7CFrAw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzbY6pOHYg2huNQI+jk6Xmv3T92f+3zj8yDCJ1Tp6MlSNAU/3j+z7O3UtFJUCsmFx4lvVr7PQ== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:fa8b:: with SMTP id o11mr5313101qvn.6.1562593717856; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 06:48:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sidious.arb.redhat.com ([12.118.3.106]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h18sm7074317qkj.134.2019.07.08.06.48.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jul 2019 06:48:37 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: dang@redhat.com Subject: Re: [Problem]testOpenUpgradeLock test failed in nfsv4.0 in 5.2.0-rc7 To: Su Yanjun , ffilzlnx@mindspring.com Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org References: From: Daniel Gryniewicz Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: <89d5612e-9af6-8f2e-15d8-ff6af29d508a@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 09:48:36 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org 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 If it's knfsd, than Frank isn't the right person to ask. Daniel On 7/7/19 10:20 PM, Su Yanjun wrote: > Ang ping? > > 在 2019/7/3 9:34, Su Yanjun 写道: >> 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= env.c1 >>     C.init_connection() >>     Os = open_sequence(c, t.code, lockowner="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? >> >> >> > >