Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Su Yanjun <suyj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: [Problem]testOpenUpgradeLock test failed in nfsv4.0 in 5.2.0-rc7
To:     <ffilzlnx@mindspring.com>
CC:     <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <a4ff6e56-09d6-1943-8d71-91eaa418bd1e@cn.fujitsu.com>
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
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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?