public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [xfstests PATCH 0/4] locktest: cleanup, bugfixes, and add new locking test
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:13:01 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140512211301.3280b2cd@poochiereds.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140513010028.GZ5421@dastard>

On Tue, 13 May 2014 11:00:28 +1000
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, that's the test I'm adding for the kernel regression. The patch
for the bug is:

    [PATCH v2] locks: only validate the lock vs. f_mode in F_SETLK codepaths

...and I sent a pull request to Linus for it today. It should go in
fairly soon, I hope.

Thanks,
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

      reply	other threads:[~2014-05-13  1:13 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
2014-05-13  1:13       ` Jeff Layton [this message]

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=20140512211301.3280b2cd@poochiereds.net \
    --to=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox