On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 4:13 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 12:15 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 1:07 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
>
> > > The other case you found it that in case of a stale direntry the i_ino
> > > update will be skipped and so it will return an inconsistent result,
> > > right?
> >
> > Right. It returns a stale entry with the old real ino.
> > Not sure if that is an "inconsistent" result.
> > inconsistent w.r.t what?
>
> It's inconsistent with previous (before the entry got deleted)
> st_ino/i_ino.  This should actually be testable.

Right. it is testable:

     QA output created by 077
    +entry m100 has inconsistent d_ino (266 != 264)
    +entry f100 has inconsistent d_ino (367 != 16777542)
     Silence is golden

These prints are from the iteration on the first fd.
The first fd lists the stale entry with inconsistent d_ino.
The second fd does not list the stale entry (with bugfix in linux-next).
Will add it to the test in V3.

Attached patch fixes this problem.

Thanks,
Amir.