xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] [PATCH] xfs: failure mapping nfs fh to inode should return ESTALE
From: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:29:25 -0500
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20110718133710.GB9741@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20110714205036.GA19457@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110714223126.GA28694@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110716015014.GF21663@dastard> <20110716015346.GA589@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110718133710.GB9741@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: <aelder@xxxxxxx>
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 09:37 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> 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.

No need.  I'll use the original one.  Thanks.   -Alex

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