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=-2.5 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 8E979C5B57D for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 01:35:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDB12063F for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 01:35:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727107AbfGCBfP (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 21:35:15 -0400 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:57932 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727080AbfGCBfP (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 21:35:15 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,445,1557158400"; d="scan'208";a="70587071" Received: from unknown (HELO cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5]) by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2019 09:35:13 +0800 Received: from G08CNEXCHPEKD03.g08.fujitsu.local (unknown [10.167.33.85]) by cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFA14CDDD3F; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:35:14 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.167.226.33] (10.167.226.33) by G08CNEXCHPEKD03.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:35:19 +0800 From: Su Yanjun Subject: [Problem]testOpenUpgradeLock test failed in nfsv4.0 in 5.2.0-rc7 To: CC: , Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:34:02 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.226.33] X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: EDFA14CDDD3F.ADFC4 X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: suyj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org 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?