From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] locks: flock and lease related bugfixes, and remove i_flctx counters Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:20:49 +0000 Message-ID: <20150217202049.GN29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1424177190-14252-1-git-send-email-jeff.layton@primarydata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff Layton , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , "J. Bruce Fields" , Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , Sasha Levin To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:55:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Can we get that truncated series tested with some flock test suite? I > assume there is *some* filesystem tester that tests some basic flock > stuff, even if it clearly didn't catch the race due to the unlock in > the middle.. LTP runltp -f syscalls does cover some of that; BTW, looks like fcntl11, fcntl11_64, fcntl21 and fcntl21_64 in there got broken by something already merged. Hadn't don bisect yet, but seeing * NAME * fcntl11.c * * DESCRIPTION * Testcase to check locking of regions of a file * * ALGORITHM * Test changing lock sections around a write lock and * NAME * fcntl21.c * * DESCRIPTION * Check locking of regions of a file * * ALGORITHM * Test changing lock sections around a read lock I'd say that file locking merge is most likely suspect...