[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [xfstests PATCH 0/4] locktest: cleanup, bugfixes, and add new lockin

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [xfstests PATCH 0/4] locktest: cleanup, bugfixes, and add new locking test
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 20:35:05 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140512225845.GN26353@dastard>
References: <1399907193-23857-1-git-send-email-jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140512225845.GN26353@dastard>
On Tue, 13 May 2014 08:58:45 +1000
Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>