[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#7198: ls-misc failure with Oct 10 snapshot
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
bug#7198: ls-misc failure with Oct 10 snapshot |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:37:06 +0200 |
Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 10/12/10 10:57, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> What version of RHEL 5.N? I.e., what's "N"?
>
> /etc/issue says "Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.5 (Tikanga)".
> uname -a says "Linux lnxsrv01.seas.ucla.edu 2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 #1 SMP Mon
> Sep 20 07:12:06 EDT 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux".
...
> Oh, and when running atop an NFS file system I found another problem,
> which occurs with both the standard gcc and with my GCC 4.5.1:
>
> FAIL: test-rename (exit: 134)
> =============================
>
> test-rename.h:121: assertion failed
>
> Here's the output of "strace ./test-rename" in gnulib-tests:
>
> mkdir("test-rename.tdir2", 0700) = 0
> creat("test-rename.tdir/file", 0600) = 4
> close(4) = 0
> rename("test-rename.tdir2", "test-rename.tdir") = -1 ENOTEMPTY (Directory not
> empty)
> rename("test-rename.tdir2/", "test-rename.tdir") = -1 ENOTEMPTY (Directory
> not empty)
> rename("test-rename.tdir2", "test-rename.tdir/") = -1 ENOTEMPTY (Directory
> not empty)
> rename("test-rename.tdir", "test-rename.tdir2") = 0
> stat("test-rename.tdir", {st_mode=S_IFDIR|0700, st_size=4096, ...}) = 0
> write(2, "test-rename.h:121: assertion fai"..., 36test-rename.h:121:
> assertion failed
> ) = 36
That's not good. It looks like a race, where the client thinks the
source of the rename is still there for some short interval after the
rename succeeded.
What is the server running?
> The amusing thing is that, after the strace, "ls -l test-rename.t*"
> reports only this:
>
> $ ls -ltd test-rename.tdir*
> drwx------ 2 eggert csfac 4096 Oct 12 16:35 test-rename.tdir2
>
> Perhaps there's a bug in the RHEL 5.5 NFS client?
There's definitely something suspicious going on...
> That might
> conceivably explain the misc/ls-misc problem that started this thread.
First step for that one should be to avoid the warnings from perl,
e.g., via the patch I suggested.
> I'll try to look into this more latter; gotta run now.
Thanks.
- bug#7191: Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10, William Plusnick, 2010/10/11
- bug#7191: Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10, Jim Meyering, 2010/10/12
- Message not available
- Message not available
- bug#7191: Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10, William Plusnick, 2010/10/12
- bug#7191: Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10, William Plusnick, 2010/10/12
- bug#7191: Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10, Jim Meyering, 2010/10/12
- bug#7198: ls-misc failure with Oct 10 snapshot, Paul Eggert, 2010/10/12
- bug#7198: ls-misc failure with Oct 10 snapshot, Jim Meyering, 2010/10/12
- bug#7198: ls-misc failure with Oct 10 snapshot, Paul Eggert, 2010/10/12
- bug#7198: ls-misc failure with Oct 10 snapshot, Jim Meyering, 2010/10/13
- bug#7198: ls-misc failure with Oct 10 snapshot,
Jim Meyering <=
- bug#7198: ls-misc failure with Oct 10 snapshot, Paul Eggert, 2010/10/14
- bug#7198: ls-misc failure with Oct 10 snapshot, Jim Meyering, 2010/10/14
- bug#7191: Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10, William Plusnick, 2010/10/13
- bug#7191: Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10, William Plusnick, 2010/10/13
- bug#7191: Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10, William Plusnick, 2010/10/13
- bug#7191: Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10, Jim Meyering, 2010/10/13