On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 04:22:37 +0200 manu@xxxxxxxxxx (Emmanuel Dreyfus) wrote: Hello Emmanuel, > Edward Shishkin <edward@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Thanks for the report, > > I am still not sure that symlinks are the culprit. > > Um, you link on a symlink? That could be the answer: Linux links on > the symlink while BSD links on the target (both behavior are POSIX > compliant): Here is BSD hehavior: > > # ls -l a b > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 0 Oct 15 04:19 a > lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 1 Oct 15 04:20 b -> a > # ln b c > # ls -li a b c > 579242 -rw-r--r-- 2 root wheel 0 Oct 15 04:19 a > 579244 lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 1 Oct 15 04:20 b -> a > 579242 -rw-r--r-- 2 root wheel 0 Oct 15 04:19 c > This is a really interesting difference, that I didn't know about :) However, in our crypt.t we don't operate on symlinks except symlink(2) and open(2) after remount.. > > > Could you please try the attached version of crypt.t and report > > results? > > It passes. I am sorry, but it seems that the fastest option would be to pass me root permissions on your machine. So I can set gdb breakpoints to find out what is going wrong. Please, explore such possibility, and let me know the result. Thanks, Edward. _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
