Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
From:   "NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de>
To:     "Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>
Cc:     "Petr Vorel" <pvorel@suse.cz>,
        "Linux NFS Mailing List" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Yong Sun" <yosun@suse.com>,
        "Frank S. Filz" <ffilzlnx@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: pynfs: [NFS 4.0] SEC7, LOCK24 test failures
In-reply-to: <CAPL3RVE8+zYOLotpUQ6QWFy5rYS8o1NV6XbKE4-D6XpVSoYw3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <YLY9pKu38lEWaXxE@pevik>, <YLZS1iMJR59n4hue@pick.fieldses.org>,
 <164248153844.24166.16775550865302060652@noble.neil.brown.name>,
 <CAPL3RVE8+zYOLotpUQ6QWFy5rYS8o1NV6XbKE4-D6XpVSoYw3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jan 2022 10:48:35 +1100
Message-id: <164315451558.5493.17782132429187259258@noble.neil.brown.name>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022, Bruce Fields wrote:
> Frank added this test in 4299316fb357, and I don't really understand
> his description, but it *sounds* like he really wanted it to do the
> new-lockowner case.  Frank?

The way I read that commit message, there needs to be a second lock
owner (as you suggest), but there clearly isn't one.
Maybe there needs to be a second open_sequence() created ...  I'm not
sure.

NeilBrown