From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40588C04AAF for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 14:49:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FFF42173E for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 14:49:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728331AbfEUOtg (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 10:49:36 -0400 Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:57812 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727999AbfEUOtg (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 10:49:36 -0400 Received: by fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id A4AC51C81; Tue, 21 May 2019 10:49:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 10:49:35 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Benjamin Coddington Cc: Xuewei Zhang , jlayton@kernel.org, Grigor Avagyan , Trevor Bourget , Nauman Rafique , trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com, anna.schumaker@netapp.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockd: Show pid of lockd for remote locks Message-ID: <20190521144935.GB9499@fieldses.org> References: <3A924C3F-A161-4EE2-A74E-2EE1B6D2CA14@redhat.com> <20190520205106.GA29025@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 07:18:57AM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > On 20 May 2019, at 16:51, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > >On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:22:00AM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > >>Ok, I just noticed that we set fl_owner to the nlm_host in > >>nlm4svc_retrieve_args, so things are not as dire as I thought. What > >>would be nice is a sane set of tests for NLM.. > > > >What would we have needed to catch this? Sounds like it turns > >multi-client testing wouldn't have been required? (Not that that > >would > >be a bad idea.) > > Two NLM clients would be ideal to exercise the full range of > expected lock behavior. I suspect that's something I can do with > what's in pynfs today, but I haven't looked yet. I suppose if > there's a test for NLM I should make one for v4 too.. There isn't any pynfs NLM code. Some isilon folks did NLM/NSM/NFSv2/v3 pynfs tests: https://github.com/sthaber/pynfs I just never got a chance to incorporate them and try them. It's been a while, and I think there were one or two odd things about it, but maybe it'd be a good starting point. --b.