On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Yann Droneaud wrote: > Hi, > > For some days, my usage of git is not as seamless as before. > > I'm using git along sshfs/fuse (don't blame me for that), and > each time I try to rebase one of my branch, I have a conflict when applying > the third commit. Doing the same operation on a local filesystem works without any problem. Yann, thanks for looking into this. Your findings are not surprising: unlike NFS, sshfs doesn't provide inode numbers and the fuse library also doesn't guarantee stable inode numbers by default. Fuse version 2.8.x has a "noforget" option that should provide stable inode numbers, at the cost of unbounded memory use. Could you please try if this option fixes these issues? Thanks, Miklos > > ===== Part one: git ===== > > When I try to rebase one specific branch, git rebase failed when applying the third commit, > telling me about uncommited > > I've tried to do it from scratch, using git format-patch / git am > but git am also abort on the third patch with the error message: > > error: <path>/<filename>: does not match index > > So I've tried to diagnose the problem using : > > - git diff / git status : doesn't return anything. > > - git ls-tree HEAD -l <path>/<filename> : returns the correct mode and file size. > > - git log --raw --all --full-history -- <path>/<filename> : > returns valid information matching the one retrieved above. > > - git hash-object <path>/<filename> : > gives the correct sha1 for the file, as recorded in the patch extracted using git format-patch > and reported by git ls-tree or git log (see before) > > - git diff-files : it shows a lot a file, all of them in same directory > > :100644 100644 <sha1> 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 M <path>/<filename0> > :100644 100644 <sha1> 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 M <path>/<filename1> > :100644 100644 <sha1> 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 M <path>/<filename2> > :100644 100644 <sha1> 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 M <path>/<filename3> > :100644 100644 <sha1> 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 M <path>/<filename> > > BTW, there's no conflict when applying the patch manually with patch: the patch itself is fine > Using git apply --index also work, but only if it's applied alone: > apply each patches in series and git apply fails in the same third patch. > > After diving into git source code and some debugging session, I've found > that the inode number recorded in the active_cache doesn't match the one > on the filesystem for <pach>/<filename> : that's why git apply --index refuse to apply the patch. > > Then I tried to monitor stat() information for the file in <path> during > git operations. > 1) After applying the first patch, files in <path> were affected different inode number > 2) Using strace, I checked that git apply didn't make anything specials to thoses files. > The only thing strange git did, was trying to unlink(<path>), but this failed since the <path> > directory wasn't empty. > > Note: the first patch remove, change and add some files in <path> directory, while > the third patch changes another file in <path> directory > > As a workaround: running git diff / git diff --cached / git status between each > git apply --index command seems to update the cache and allows me to apply all the patches > without problem. But it's not an easy path to follow when rebasing branches. > > Surprisingly, when looking at strace output, it seems that git apply, once work done, is calling lstat() > for all the files under <path>, and it sees the new inodes allocated to those files, but I don't know what > it is doing with those information, if it's not stored in the index. > > To conclude, it was a bit hard to diagnose from git point of view. > > ====== Part two: sshfs / fuse ====== > > At this time sshfs seems to be guilty of bad behavior, breaking somes POSIX rules. > > So I tried the following testcase on another computer to reproduce the > problem outside of git. > > Here the results: > > $ mkdir dir > $ touch dir/a dir/b > $ stat -t dir/* > dir/a 0 0 81b4 500 500 15 3 1 0 0 1297882724 1297882724 1297882724 4096 > dir/b 0 0 81b4 500 500 15 4 1 0 0 1297882726 1297882726 1297882726 4096 > $ rmdir dir > rmdir: failed to remove `dir1': Operation not permitted > $ stat -t dir/* > dir/a 0 0 81b4 500 500 15 6 1 0 0 1297882724 1297882724 1297882724 4096 > dir/b 0 0 81b4 500 500 15 7 1 0 0 1297882726 1297882726 1297882726 4096 > > One can see that inode 3 became inode 6 and inode 4 became inode 7 after the failed > unlink operation on dir. Which seems to be a bit uncommon for me. > > Note: on a local filesystem, rmdir failed with message rmdir: failed to remove `dir1': Directory not empty > > I try to add some debug support to fuse / sshfs in order to locate more precisely the problem: > (lines beginning by -/+ where added by me in libfuse, line beginning with --/++ in sshfs) > > $ sshfs localhost:<export> <mount> -o sshfs_debug,debug,cache=no -d -f -s > > unique: 22, opcode: FORGET (2), nodeid: 4, insize: 48, pid: 0 > - forget 4 > FORGET 4/1 > DELETE: 4 > + forget 4 > unique: 23, opcode: FORGET (2), nodeid: 3, insize: 48, pid: 0 > - forget 3 > FORGET 3/1 > DELETE: 3 > + forget 3 > unique: 24, opcode: RMDIR (11), nodeid: 1, insize: 44, pid: 9044 > - rmdir 1 dir > rmdir /dir > -- rmdir(/dir) > [00020] RMDIR > [00020] STATUS 28bytes (0ms) > ++ rmdir(/dir) = -1 > unique: 24, error: -1 (Operation not permitted), outsize: 16 > + rmdir 1 dir > unique: 25, opcode: FORGET (2), nodeid: 2, insize: 48, pid: 0 > - forget 2 > FORGET 2/1 > DELETE: 2 > + forget 2 > > One can see that the reference to files under the directory are asked by > the kernel to be forgotten, even if the directory is not yet removed. > > This seems a bit illogical since a directory with files under it can't > be removed (but FORGET could apply to file deleted but still referenced > by a process). > > Note: if the file is opened, the inode associated to the file name > didn't change. Hopefully. > > I've tried to reproduce the problem with other virtual filesystem like > shm / tmpfs / devtmpfs / ramfs : no problem. > > I've also tried with NFS (local), and there's no problem too (the inode > numbers reported from NFS client side are the same than the server > side). > > So it seems this a FUSE only problem, and I haven't found exactly why. > > Regards. > > -- > Yann Droneaud -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html