Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:11:03 +0100 | From | Matthias-Christian Ott <> | Subject | Re: proc path_walk glitch ? |
| |
Der Herr Hofrat wrote:
>HI ! > > I noticed a slight proc filesystem strangness in the 2.4.2X and 2.6.X > (atleast up to 2.6.8). Assuming that process 8655 exists and is running > long enough (ls -lR / or so) > >cd /proc/8655 >kill -9 8655 >ls >/usr/bin/ls: .: Stale NFS file handle > >open(".", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK|O_LARGEFILE|O_DIRECTORY) = -1 ESTALE (Stale NFS file handle) from fs/namei.c -> link_path_walk : > >int fastcall link_path_walk(const char * name, struct nameidata *nd) >{ > struct dentry *dentry; > struct inode *inode; > int err; > unsigned int lookup_flags = nd->flags; > > while (*name=='/') > name++; > if (!*name) > goto return_reval; > ... > >return_reval: > /* > * We bypassed the ordinary revalidation routines. > * Check the cached dentry for staleness. > */ > dentry = nd->dentry; > if (dentry && dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) { > err = -ESTALE; > if (!dentry->d_op->d_revalidate(dentry, 0)) { > d_invalidate(dentry); > break; > } > } > > > Why does return_reval return -ESTALE instead of -ENOENT here - might need an >extra check on what filesystem this is working on ? > >/usr/bin/ls: .: no such file or directory > > would seem more meaningfull to me when I find it in a logfile. > >thx ! >hofrat >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > > Does it happen in 2.6.10 or are you sing 2.6.8?
Matthias-Christian Ott - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |