xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [xfs-masters] [PATCH] xfs: failure mapping nfs fh to inode should re

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] [PATCH] xfs: failure mapping nfs fh to inode should return ESTALE
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:37:10 -0400
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110716015346.GA589@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20110714205036.GA19457@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110714223126.GA28694@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110716015014.GF21663@dastard> <20110716015346.GA589@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 09:53:46PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:50:14AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Bulkstat also checks for ENOENT returns from xfs_iget() as the
> > lookup it does is inherently racy. That is, if the inode is
> > allocated when it is read from the IBT, but then has been unlinked
> > before the actual xfs_iget() call, it expects to get back an ENOENT
> > to tell it the inode has been unlinked and shouldn't be included in
> > the bulkstat output. Otherwise, it returns the error to userspace.
> > 
> > So converting the mode checks to return ESTALE definitely has the
> > chance of breaking stuff that uses bulkstat (e.g. xfsdump) because
> > it will return errors now where it previously just skipped the
> > (unlinked) inode.
> 
> Sounds like we should simply go with the original version of the patch
> then.

OK.  Let me know if someone needs that resent....

--b.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>