Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B20C433F5 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 16:56:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235574AbiADQ4h (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2022 11:56:37 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60614 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235573AbiADQ4g (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2022 11:56:36 -0500 Received: from fieldses.org (fieldses.org [IPv6:2600:3c00:e000:2f7::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 725A2C061761 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 08:56:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id 980D67099; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 11:56:34 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 fieldses.org 980D67099 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fieldses.org; s=default; t=1641315394; bh=LvpWAZG2eRJg2xHYQ4CzYNWAKCXqWZMRgrbHFxJDFgc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=qxOTbmdTDtl270s93/RAoj8evlMkMjKyEh0+wYgHhomJt1GINxEKT8QXTB/pqVfrR uZgl1n8JnfUQev5AamipQErWeOyC177gfTNmDX3XNOtcnCTdxvVcvyWiQYt7KLsekD Lp17s0hNmcKEr/x8ukm84GtT/GkS0pl9k+AlJpK4= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 11:56:34 -0500 From: Bruce Fields To: Chuck Lever III Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List Subject: Re: NFSv4 OPEN returns a zero cinfo.after on tmpfs Message-ID: <20220104165634.GE7815@fieldses.org> References: <49640909-A7F0-4004-AF55-859621B26D38@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49640909-A7F0-4004-AF55-859621B26D38@oracle.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 04:46:26AM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: > During some testing I noticed that OPEN frequently returns a > zero in the cinfo.after field on my test share, which is tmpfs. > Does not seem to be an issue for xfs. Thanks for catching this. > An easy way to address this would be to revert 428a23d2bf0c. But I > wonder if there are any particular regression tests in the pynfs > suite that could detect this kind of misbehavior, in case someone > would like to try to re-implement the optimization in 428a23d2bf0c. From a quick grep the only tests I see checking cinfo are in nfs4.0/servertests/st_rename.py --b.