From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [xfstests PATCH 0/4] locktest: cleanup, bugfixes, and add new locking test
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:00:28 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140513010028.GZ5421@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140512203505.16f73ef8@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 08:35:05PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2014 08:58:45 +1000
> Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:06:29AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > This patchset does some general cleanup of the locktest binary, adds
> > > some infrastructure to allow testing F_GETLK requests, and adds a new
> > > F_GETLK test to the pile.
> > >
> > > The main impetus here is a regression that I caused in F_GETLK handling
> > > for v3.15. The patch is making its way to Linus now, but I want to be
> > > sure that it doesn't regress in the future.
> >
> > So do these changes cause locktest to fail on older kernels? i.e.
> > does changing the test cause the locktest tests to fail where
> > previously they passed? If so, we're going to have to make this a
> > little more complex...
> >
>
> I haven't tested on much in the way of older kernels, but I wouldn't
> expect it to cause any problems. The only behavior change that should
> be introduced is the F_GETLK test, and older kernels should pass that
> just fine (modulo v3.15 which has a regression that should be patched
> soon). The rest of the changes are just cleanups, and shouldn't
> introduce any behavioral changes.
Is this the regression in question?
+Server failure in 29:Verify that F_GETLK for F_WRLCK doesn't
require that file be opened for write
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-13 1:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-12 15:06 [xfstests PATCH 0/4] locktest: cleanup, bugfixes, and add new locking test Jeff Layton
2014-05-12 15:06 ` [xfstests PATCH 1/4] locktest: don't assume that F_OPEN should use O_RDWR Jeff Layton
2014-05-12 15:06 ` [xfstests PATCH 2/4] locktest: set f_fd to INVALID_HANDLE on close Jeff Layton
2014-05-12 15:06 ` [xfstests PATCH 3/4] locktest: consolidate do_lock and do_unlock, and add ability to F_GETLK Jeff Layton
2014-05-12 15:06 ` [xfstests PATCH 4/4] locktest: add a F_GETLK vs. openmode test Jeff Layton
2014-05-12 22:58 ` [xfstests PATCH 0/4] locktest: cleanup, bugfixes, and add new locking test Dave Chinner
2014-05-13 0:35 ` Jeff Layton
2014-05-13 0:54 ` Dave Chinner
2014-05-13 1:00 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2014-05-13 1:13 ` Jeff Layton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140513010028.GZ5421@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.