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;
Subject: Re: [Problem]testOpenUpgradeLock test failed in nfsv4.0 in 5.2.0-rc7
To:     <bfields@fieldses.org>
CC:     <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>, <dang@redhat.com>,
        <ffilzlnx@mindspring.com>
References: <a4ff6e56-09d6-1943-8d71-91eaa418bd1e@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <f105f5a8-d38f-a58a-38d1-6b7a4df4dc9d@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <89d5612e-9af6-8f2e-15d8-ff6af29d508a@redhat.com>
 <016101d5359b$c71f06c0$555d1440$@mindspring.com>
From:   Su Yanjun <suyj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Message-ID: <4d6599c3-2280-e919-b60f-905f86452ac1@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 13:27:31 +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: <016101d5359b$c71f06c0$555d1440$@mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Bruce

在 2019/7/8 22:45, Frank Filz 写道:
> Yea, sorry, I totally missed this, but it does look like it's a Kernel nfsd
Any suggestions?
> issue.
>
> Frank
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Gryniewicz [mailto:dang@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 6:49 AM
>> To: Su Yanjun <suyj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>; ffilzlnx@mindspring.com
>> Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [Problem]testOpenUpgradeLock test failed in nfsv4.0 in
>> 5.2.0-rc7
>>
>> Is this running knfsd or Ganesha as the server?  If it's Ganesha, the
>> question
>> would be better asked on the Ganesha Devel list
>> devel@lists.nfs-ganesha.org
>>
>> If it's knfsd, than Frank isn't the right person to ask.
We are using the knfsd.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> On 7/7/19 10:20 PM, Su Yanjun wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>