Hi Raghavendra, In [1], its mentioned that "when the inode/gfid is missing, brick report back as an ESTALE error". Could you please list the possible cases which shall result in this behavior. If it occurs only when the file/dir is not actually present at the back-end, shouldn't we fix the server to send ENOENT then? Thanks, Soumya ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <rgowdapp@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Soumya Koduri" <skoduri@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Poornima Gurusiddaiah" <pgurusid@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Raghavendra Talur" > <rtalur@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Shyamsundar Ranganathan" <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Vijay Bellur" <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Niels de Vos" > <ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Ira Cooper" <icooper@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Nithya Balachandran" <nbalacha@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gluster Devel" > <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:03:34 PM > Subject: Report ESTALE as ENOENT > > Hi all, > > rm has a different behavior for ESTALE when compared to ENOENT. So, we > shouldn't be reporting ENOENT errors as ESTALE. I've a fix for fuse [1]. > Similar fix is necessary for NFS and gfapi (samba too?). > > Also, reviews on [1] is much appreciated as this patch unconditionally > converts all ESTALE to ENOENT, which might not be correct behavior always. > Sometimes ESTALE might be a valid errno. If you point me when it is > necessary to report ESTALE errors unchanged, I'll accommodate the comments > in the patch. > > @Soumya/Poornima/Raghavendra, > > Is it possible to send an analogous patch to NFS and gfapi? > > [1] http://review.gluster.org/#/c/13816/ > > regards, > Raghavendra > _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
