Re: [PATCH v1 00/42] Update NFSD XDR functions

Chuck Lever
2021-01-09T16:44:02Z

> On Jan 8, 2021, at 5:54 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 13:08 -0500, bfields@fieldses.org wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 04:35:50PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> Just ignore generic/465. As far as NFS is concerned, the test has
>>> utterly borked assumptions about O_DIRECT ordering.
>>
>> Thanks, adding to my list of tests to skip. Should we report it as
>> an
>> xfstests bug?
>>
>> (Is the test just wrong, or is this some non-standard but documented
>> NFS
>> behavior, or something else?)
>>
>> --b.
>
> I'm not sure who decided the ordering requirements for O_DIRECT, but in
> order to fix the generic/465 case, I'd either have to order all reads
> with all outstanding writes or implement some kind of range locking to
> do it in a more fine-grained way.
>
> We do order buffered I/O and O_DIRECT, so that backup programs can do
> their thing on databases that use O_DIRECT. However we do assume that
> anyone using O_DIRECT for I/O is doing their own synchronisation.

Perhaps the best approach would be to add generic/465 to the exempt-list
for NFS.

--
Chuck Lever