From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6944D7F4E for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 20:13:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EAC13041BF for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 18:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f43.google.com (mail-qa0-f43.google.com [209.85.216.43]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id cOrm0YYrcKd7s6dE (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 18:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id m5so7861267qaj.16 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 18:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:13:01 -0400 From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [xfstests PATCH 0/4] locktest: cleanup, bugfixes, and add new locking test Message-ID: <20140512211301.3280b2cd@poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: <20140513010028.GZ5421@dastard> References: <1399907193-23857-1-git-send-email-jlayton@poochiereds.net> <20140512225845.GN26353@dastard> <20140512203505.16f73ef8@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20140513010028.GZ5421@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, 13 May 2014 11:00:28 +1000 Dave Chinner 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 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs