Received: by 2002:a25:ad19:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id y25csp6141871ybi; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 21:27:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwg6HKU5xTdyi+4HyVN8AH2iIpnpkmamGVHfTJcMVA+lLoKxNnP2DxOni8yd+mjn3P93FpB X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:1b4c:: with SMTP id q70mr21942387pjq.69.1562560076420; Sun, 07 Jul 2019 21:27:56 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1562560076; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ufnwWfXCFym0TpX1b+oAHj6x/+MeXmdDBYZEQ5HLZE84rl907mgs2r4u/D1VP1O59f 5pC2/v+J3Uq4J1Oam6BeINTa5U8cPoghDruYpedCAUPypG6SdJ24El6vyz9tBuuDmog/ JRjtFROBCdE/cNzhu0onSlP1tf+GdQ6aWUEg75muCsc3r+imt98XG5l19WJZEE6+Incj GrwuEiyzYZKtcqukT1RoGS/JLGYbO4qCBIaX4j4YBXs7441q/AarK4sk+qRJ1XYVkI+9 WTh+e6BIB9KJ43i7KhQaEWzVefT/9puaNwnHlltDi/tHtIgv8ALXTbVqylMjHNXY3zK4 H6Mg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:references:cc:to:from :subject; bh=LaIIbtDqsAC51v+LVu5PJpKMGukiD2mTqZ7aTWeoGlM=; b=BKQL7n3fmnQkkUXKTQD8Oiskl/Bexs1cUDe3e0PfDeUXpbpBBh2+Gz+GBFeZuB/wyf YZUs+FxZ2xWlpoHZ8rglre3zz87hadaNFm1dO8xer/FNAP+1AJf76zp7nB2GA5Y0Mm1+ FdQScTSsL1mEra3h9YckzOaulcS+O809BFdpB7jg9fmakpiNexLktGjaW/Kkk0dsj/wv VI4Xw6jYcZGa/NBKWidpHnlteq1Us5QPQMtKpqSQiPhMnyVlrT6eQNA/c35fgEkhdz3Z qKdDjCKkGXXW5+pNvDoR+qz9nrzGqqoAc0OvC9s5EDB58oozcdxD2XaeUjSAhoMBzHMa 0rGA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id u85si17626442pgb.258.2019.07.07.21.27.30; Sun, 07 Jul 2019 21:27:56 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727375AbfGHCVl (ORCPT + 99 others); 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 X-Spam-Status: No 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? > > >