Latest leases patchset - getting there !

[Jeremy Allison]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 08:02:38PM +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> > Great ! I'll write the test for the dynamic share
> > path today, and then I think we have full coverage
> > (fingers crossed :-).
> 
> :-)
> 
> Can you also change the timeout test in order to verify that
> we still be a async break to none, when the other handle writes.
> As an additional verification that the lease is not damaged,
> but letting it timing out.

Sure, let me finish my dynamic share path test first :-).

> It would also be good to verify this section with a test:
> 
>         if (lp_locking(fsp->conn->params) && file_has_brlocks(fsp)) {
>                 DEBUG(10,("grant_fsp_oplock_type: file %s has byte range
> locks\n",
>                         fsp_str_dbg(fsp)));
>                 granted &= ~SMB2_LEASE_READ;
>         }
> 
> We need to make sure we never grant "W" or WH" leases.
> 
> It's also unclear to me why a client shouldn't be able to get a read lease,
> when it already has brlocks (and a possible write lease).

Hmmm. brlocks can block both reads and writes, so preventing
both seems right.

> Do we have an oplock related test for this already?

Not sure, let me look !