Message-ID: <4E0B8C5E.1090505@netapp.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:34:38 -0400
From: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
CC: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] NFSD: Added TEST_STATEID operation
References: <1305922380-8162-1-git-send-email-bjschuma@netapp.com> <1305922380-8162-3-git-send-email-bjschuma@netapp.com> <4E0B81B6.8060005@netapp.com> <20110629195447.GC3279@fieldses.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110629195447.GC3279@fieldses.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
MIME-Version: 1.0

On 06/29/2011 03:54 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:49:10PM -0400, Bryan Schumaker wrote:
>> On 05/20/2011 04:13 PM, bjschuma@netapp.com wrote:
>>> +__be32
>>> +nfsd4_do_test_stateid(stateid_t *stateid, int flags)
>>> +{
>>> +	__be32 ret = nfs4_validate_stateid(stateid, flags);
>>> +	if (!ret)
>>> +		ret = nfs4_validate_stateid(stateid, flags);
>>> +	return ret;
>>
>> Looking back at this, I'm not convinced that I need to call nfs4_validate_stateid() twice with the same stateid and flags.  What is the status of these patches?  Should I resubmit everything or send in a small patch to fix this?
> 
> Whoops, lazy review on my part....
> 
> Looks like I'd applied that locally but not pushed it out to my public
> tree yet, so I could still take a replacement.

Ok, sounds good.
> 
> How are you testing these, by the way?  On second thoughts, I think I
> may have already asked you that, and forgotten the answer, so don't
> bother answering here--just add some text to the changelog and then I'll
> know how to find the answer next time.

I found this as I was going through my fault injection code.  I'm going to double check these with my fault injection changes and then try to send in updates for both next week.

- Bryan

> 
> --b.