On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 10:49 AM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/30/25 8:10 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > >> > >> This code would also make the behaviour consistent with prior to > >> 4cc9b9f2bf4d. But now I question whether or not the new behaviour is > >> what is desired going forward or not? > >> > >> Here's another thing to consider: the same command done over nfsv4 > >> returns an error. I guess nobody ever complained that flock over v3 > >> was successful but failed over v4? > > > > That is useful. Given that: > > - exclusive flock without write access over v4 never worked > > - As Tom notes, new man pages document that exclusive flock without write access > > isn't expected to work over NFS > > - it is hard to think of a genuine use case for exclusive flock without > > write access > > > > I'm inclined to leave this code as it is and declare your failing test > > to no longer be invalid. > > For the record, which test exactly is failing? Is there a BugLink? Test is just an flock()? > > > > That is technically a regression, but > > regressions only matter if people notice them (and complain to Linus). > > No harm - no fowl. > > -- > Chuck Lever >
