Latest leases patchset - getting there !

[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
> does:
> 
> 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 :-).

Jeremy.