On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, John Baldwin wrote:
It looks like it also returns ESTALE when the inode is invalid (<
ROOTINO || > max inodes?) - would an unlinked file in FFS referenced at
a later time report an invalid inode?
I'm no ufs guy, but the only way I can think of is if the file system
on the server was newfs'd with fewer i-nodes? (Unlikely, but...)
(Basically, it is safe to return ESTALE for anything that is not
a transient failure that could recover on a retry.)
But back to your point, zfs_zget() seems to be failing and returning the
EINVAL before zfs_fhtovp() even has a chance to set and check zp_gen.
I'm trying to get some more details through the use of gratuitous
dprintf()'s, but they don't seem to be making it to any logs or the
console even with vfs.zfs.debug=1 set. Any pointers on how to get these
dprintf() calls working?
I know diddly (as in absolutely nothing about zfs).
That I have no idea on. Maybe Rick can chime in? I'm actually not sure why
we would want to treat a FHTOVP failure as anything but an ESTALE error in the
NFS server to be honest.
As far as I know, only if the underlying file system somehow has a
situation where the file handle can't be translated at that point in time,
but could be able to later. I have no idea if any file system is like that
and I don't such a file system would be an appropriate choice for an NFS
server, even if such a beast exists. (Even then, although FreeBSD's client
assumes EIO might recover on a retry, that isn't specified in any RFC, as
far as I know.)
That's why I proposed a patch that simply translates all VFS_FHTOVP()
errors to ESTALE in the NFS server. (It seems simpler than chasing down
cases in all the underlying file systems?)
rick, chiming in:-)
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
