On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 11:26:29AM +0800, levin li wrote: > >> nr_copies = get_nr_copies(dw->vnodes); > >> if (nr_copies> inode->nr_copies) > >> nr_copies = inode->nr_copies;<--inode->nr_copies will > >>get a random value > >That code defintively is wrong, and was introduced by a mismerge, sorry. > >I'll send a patch to fix it. > > > >But it's unrelated to the issue I report, which is reproducible with > >git tree revision dabb5200202f2225e69002c055afba97ee5cf73a, and is fine > >with the revision before, 453072667ce08c6613d627b8ed0ac4f33e6e8dbe. > > > What you saw in the output of my code is not a bug, I did it to make the > vdi size as zero to mark it as delete failed, I think it's better not to > and a field to the sheepdog_inode struct, if fail to delete some of its data > objects, the vdi should be marked as delete failed, so we can try to delete > it again. I don't understand this - after a vdi delete we still show the it when doing a vdi list. I can't see how that is not a bug. |