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 22A52C0650E for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 02:21:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E751420665 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 02:21:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727375AbfGHCVl (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jul 2019 22:21:41 -0400 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:35115 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726105AbfGHCVl (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jul 2019 22:21:41 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,464,1557158400"; d="scan'208";a="70900599" Received: from unknown (HELO cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5]) by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2019 10:21:36 +0800 Received: from G08CNEXCHPEKD03.g08.fujitsu.local (unknown [10.167.33.85]) by cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D914CDDD5C; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:21:37 +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; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:21:42 +0800 Subject: Re: [Problem]testOpenUpgradeLock test failed in nfsv4.0 in 5.2.0-rc7 From: Su Yanjun To: CC: , References: Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:20:21 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.226.33] X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: E6D914CDDD5C.AD7B1 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 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? > > >