Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs+bounces-1059-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:36:26 +0800
From: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
	Yongcheng Yang <yoyang@redhat.com>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
	fstests@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH fstests 2/2] generic/732: don't run it on NFS
Message-ID: <20240112133626.k6iaqkmnn5ngmzx7@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com>
References: <20240110-fixes-v1-0-69f5ddd95656@kernel.org>
 <20240110-fixes-v1-2-69f5ddd95656@kernel.org>
 <20240111204931.oqbub6crymt2misb@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com>
 <1a2ad4e0142c6a80a0930c9d4841facb75a8f93b.camel@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1a2ad4e0142c6a80a0930c9d4841facb75a8f93b.camel@kernel.org>

On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 04:13:11PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-01-12 at 04:49 +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 01:27:28PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > This test sets up two independent superblocks with the same backend
> > > server, and then does RENAMES of the same files in the two servers. This
> > > is basically trying to simulate the case where two clients are competing
> > > to rename files in the same directory on the same server.
> > > 
> > > This test would usually pass vs. an NFSv4 server that doesn't have
> > > dfdd2630a7398 ("nfsd: fix change_info in NFSv4 RENAME replies"), because
> > > the client would end up improperly invalidating the dcache for the whole
> > > dir after most RENAMEs.
> > > 
> > > However, this test doesn't (and shouldn't) pass on NFS, because the
> > > client has no idea that a rename has happened on the second mount. The
> > > expected behavior for the NFS client is for it to use the cache timeouts
> > > in this case, which is what it now does with the above server bug fixed.
> > > 
> > > Exempt NFS from running this test, since we don't expect it to pass.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Yongcheng Yang <yoyang@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > 
> > This case is written for a nfs fix at first. If nfs would like to skip this
> > test, I don't know if it makes sense to keep it in fstests?
> > 
> > 
> 
> It might make sense to keep this test in place for stuff like cephfs,
> but if dropping it altogether is best, then that's fine with me.

Oh, I forgot this:

Reviewed-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>

> 
> > 
> > >  tests/generic/732 | 4 +---
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tests/generic/732 b/tests/generic/732
> > > index 785aac58f361..5b5087d5accd 100755
> > > --- a/tests/generic/732
> > > +++ b/tests/generic/732
> > > @@ -22,9 +22,7 @@ _cleanup()
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  # real QA test starts here
> > > -_supported_fs generic
> > > -[ "$FSTYP" = "nfs" ] && _fixed_by_kernel_commit fdd2630a739819 \
> > > -	"nfsd: fix change_info in NFSv4 RENAME replies"
> > > +_supported_fs ^nfs
> > >  
> > >  _require_test
> > >  _require_scratch
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 2.43.0
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
>