[pnfs] NFS4ERR_BADSESSION in connectathon testing

[William A. (Andy) Adamson]

Hi Ricardo

Is it OK to dump the bakeathon patches into the 2.6.18.3 git tree? I think
the answer is yes -  Just asking 'cause I know you are moving code to a new
kernel....

-->Andy

On 7/3/07, Labiaga, Ricardo <Ricardo.Labiaga at netapp.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi Andy,
>
> I did not run the locking tests in Austin.  The Solaris client ran the
> basic and general tests against our server and ran into problems in the
> special tests.  We ran out of time to debug it though.
>
> - ricardo
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* William A. (Andy) Adamson [mailto:andros at citi.umich.edu]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:34 AM
> *To:* pnfs at linux-nfs.org
> *Subject:* [pnfs] NFS4ERR_BADSESSION in connectathon testing
>
> Hi
>
> I'm testing my Austin final patch set, which includes setting the clientid
> in the LOCK/LOCKT and LOCKU operations to zero. The tests pass - sometimes!
> When they fail, it is usually in the connectathon lock tests, after I've run
> either the basic or special tests. The lock tests have (so far) always run
> successfully when run first. The lock tests always fail on test #12, the 2nd
> time through test series.
>
> The error is on the client which sends two compounds on the wire with the
> same session sequence number and slot number which causes the server to
> correctly return NFS4ERR_BADSESSION, and the client hangs.
>
> Connectathon lock test #12 involves a child and parent one holds the lock,
> the other waiting, and is then signaled. So there is a timing piece to the
> test.
>
> Has anybody else seen this behaviour? I don't think it is due to the LOCK
> patches, and I don't think anyone else ran the Connectathon lock tests in
> Austin - is that right?
>
> -->Andy
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://linux-nfs.org/pipermail/pnfs/attachments/20070703/46440040/attachment.htm