Latest leases patchset - getting there !
Stefan (metze) Metzmacher
metze at samba.org
Fri Nov 21 17:27:27 MST 2014
Am 21.11.2014 um 19:25 schrieb Jeremy Allison:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:20:22AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> OK, I'm testing breaking4 by removing
>> the commented out code, and testing
>> directly against W2K12.
>> W2K12 doesn't do what the test expects
>> it to do so I need to understand what
>> you're trying to test here. Your code
>> Create LEASE1(R) ->
>> <- H1,LEASE1(R)
>> Create Lease2(RH) ->
>> <- H2,LEASE2(RH)
>> Create-Overwrite (NO OPLOCK) ->
>> What W2K12 does here is:
>> <- H3 (NO OPLOCK)
>> immediately followed by:
>> <- Break to none (LEASE2), ack required.
>> <- Break to none (LEASE1), No ack required.
>> The test code seems to expect that the reply
>> to the Create-Overwrite (NO OPLOCK) would
>> be deferred until the reply to the
>> Break to none (LEASE2), ack required
>> packet is received (which to be honest
>> I'd expect too :-), but that's not
>> how Windows behaves.
>> I'm pretty comfortable with how our
>> lease code is behaving now w.r.t. conflicting
>> non-lease opens, so I'm going to start
>> squashing some of the commits into a more
>> coherent patchset, in the hope we can
>> get this merged asap.
> Just to cheer you up, if I run the modified
> breaking4 against smbd (with my patch from
> last night) it behaves in *exactly*
> the same way as W2K12 :-). So I'm hoping we're
> good to go here :-).
I'll have a look at it...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the samba-technical