[Gluster-devel] Report ESTALE as ENOENT

[Soumya Koduri]

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 at redhat.com>
> To: "Soumya Koduri" <skoduri at redhat.com>, "Poornima Gurusiddaiah" <pgurusid at redhat.com>, "Raghavendra Talur"
> <rtalur at redhat.com>
> Cc: "Shyamsundar Ranganathan" <srangana at redhat.com>, "Vijay Bellur" <vbellur at redhat.com>, "Niels de Vos"
> <ndevos at redhat.com>, "Ira Cooper" <icooper at redhat.com>, "Nithya Balachandran" <nbalacha at redhat.com>, "Gluster Devel"
> <gluster-devel at gluster.org>
> 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
>