Proposed patch: smbtorture4: RAW-OPLOCK's CHECK_VAL

Stefan (metze) Metzmacher metze at
Wed Jul 25 09:10:57 GMT 2007

Hash: SHA1

Volker Lendecke schrieb:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 02:29:39PM -0700, Zack Kirsch wrote:
>> I've been playing around with smbtorture and have noticed a bit of an
>> oddity in the RAW-OPLOCK test suite.  Specifically, if you have two
>> errors in a test (one of them caught by CHECK_VAL), the error from
>> CHECK_VAL will be overwritten! I propose the following patch, where we
>> will still continue the rest of the test (after failing a CHECK_VAL) but
>> will immediately print out the error.
> Setting "kernel oplocks = yes" in make test on Linux:
> Without your patch I for example get
> TEST BATCH10 FAILED! - torture/raw/oplock.c:964: wrong value for break_info.fnum got 0x0 - should be 0x106c
> With your patch: 
> (torture/raw/oplock.c:963): wrong value for break_info.count got 0x0 - should be 0x1
> (torture/raw/oplock.c:964): wrong value for break_info.fnum got 0x0 - should be 0x109e
> ERROR IN TEST BATCH10! - Unknown error/failure
> I don't know how to solve this Unknown error/failure thing.
> The "real" error message should have been "Hey, you did not
> send an oplock break".
> Not applying directly, I'm not sure which alternative is the
> better one.

I think the 2nd is better as the first error isn't hidden...

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE -


More information about the samba-technical mailing list