[Bugs] [Bug 1630804] libgfapi-python: test_listdir_with_stat and test_scandir failure on release 5 branch
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Oct 16 05:46:49 UTC 2018
--- Comment #20 from Soumya Koduri <skoduri at redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Raghavendra G from comment #19)
> (In reply to Soumya Koduri from comment #14)
> > Okay after a bit of thorough reading, I see that we do not skip dir entries
> > (with entry->inode NULL) in the response but just do not perform lookup/link
> > their inodes so that any further operation on that dirent, shall force
> > lookup.
> > So I see two approaches to fix this particular issue -
> > * From the commit-msg,
> > "translators like readdir-ahead selectively retain entry information of iatt
> > (gfid and type) when rest of the iatt is invalidated (for write invalidating
> > ia_size, (m)(c)times etc)."
> > Since readdir-ahead needs to invalidate attr for only files but not
> > directories, it can set entry->inode to NULL and gfapi shall perform lookup
> > to link inode and fetch stat before sending the attr to application
> Can't gfapi do the same if attr is invalid (even though entry information is
> valid)? I am suggesting this because fuse-bridge separates entry and
> attribute information and setting entry->inode to NULL (by readdir-ahead)
> means fuse-bridge cannot use entry information even though its valid.
yes.. it can ..that's the below option which I mentioned and even Shyam & Niels
suggest that we can use IATT_*_VALID macros to have those checks.
> > * or if this case needs to be handled for directories as well -->
> > we need extra check in the above routine " glfd_entry_refresh()" to validate
> > stat and perform lookup if NULL.
> What is the value of stats returned to application if dentry points to
We send the dentry info along with stats as is ..just that inode shall not be
created & linked if not present already so that it shall be looked upon on any
next operation (I think it was requirement from dht/tiering to set need_lookup
flag for directory entries...dont remember the exact reason)
> > Thoughts?
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the Bugs