On Nov 23, 2016, at 3:20 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> In the NFS case an attempt to chdir out of a removed directory could result
> in ESTALE, and that should not cause the test to fail.
>
> This was causing intermittent failures on generic/011 on NFS.
>
> Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> src/dirstress.c | 12 ++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Sorry, who do xfstests patches go to?--b.
They are sent to fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cheers, Andreas
>
> diff --git a/src/dirstress.c b/src/dirstress.c
> index f8f7355..33a166c 100644
> --- a/src/dirstress.c
> +++ b/src/dirstress.c
> @@ -203,8 +203,10 @@ dirstress(
> if (verbose) fprintf(stderr,"** [%d] chdir ..\n", pid);
> error = chdir("..");
> if (error) {
> - /* If this is multithreaded, then expecting a ENOENT here is fine */
> - if (nprocs_per_dir > 1 && errno == ENOENT) {
> + /* If this is multithreaded, then expecting a ENOENT here is fine,
> + * and ESTALE is normal in the NFS case. */
> + if (nprocs_per_dir > 1 &&
> + (errno == ENOENT || errno = ESTALE)) {
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -224,8 +226,10 @@ dirstress(
> if (verbose) fprintf(stderr,"** [%d] chdir ..\n", pid);
> error = chdir("..");
> if (error) {
> - /* If this is multithreaded, then expecting a ENOENT here is fine */
> - if (nprocs_per_dir > 1 && errno == ENOENT) {
> + /* If this is multithreaded, then expecting a ENOENT here is fine,
> + * and ESTALE is normal in the NFS case. */
> + if (nprocs_per_dir > 1 &&
> + (errno == ENOENT || errno = ESTALE)) {
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.9.3
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
