Re: [Yaffs] Not removing all files with "rm -rf", getting "D…

Top Page
Attachments:
Message as email
+ (text/plain)
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Charles Manning
Date:  
To: YAFFS ML
Subject: Re: [Yaffs] Not removing all files with "rm -rf", getting "Directory not empty" error
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 1:08 PM, JoSH Lehan <> wrote:
> Hello!  Sending this email again, because it might have been eaten by
> the spamfilter.  Removing the URL and trying again, sorry for any
> double-posting.
>
> I'm running the yaffs2 filesystem on an ARM board, under Linux
> 2.6.32.10 kernel, using the yaffs2 git snapshot from 2010-03-29.  The
> "rm" command is from Busybox 1.13.1.
>
> My problem is this: When I do "rm -rf dir", on a directory, it won't
> delete every file.  It will error out with "Directory not empty"
> errors.
>
> The directory that it has trouble with, is the largest on the
> filesystem.  It has 153 files and 5 subdirectories, for a total of 158
> file objects.  When the error happens, it deletes most, but not all,
> of them.  It leaves behind 8 files, and no subdirectories.  Strange.
> Is 150 a magic number within yaffs2?
>
> If I repeat the "rm -rf dir" command again, immediately afterwards, it
> succeeds.  All files are correctly deleted.
>
> The NAND on this board appears to be working normally, no errors are
> logged, except for the usual handful of known-bad blocks that are
> correctly detected at yaffs2 mount time (and correctly skipped over).
>
> Is this a bug in yaffs2?  I saw it mentioned on this mailing list, a
> fairly long time ago.  Google for "zhen feng yaffs" and you'll find
> it.  It's dated 2005-09-12.
>
> That was the only mention I could find.  Has anybody else also
> experienced this issue?
>
> Thanks!
>


Josh

The latest set of changes to support nfs introduced a couple of
changes wrt readdir. At the time of editing in I was concerned this
could impact on the busybox rm/dir issue of old, but in the end I
forgot to test this. My bad!

I don't currently have a running busybox set up that would test this.
Could you please test with the previous version
(03c76f6c10acaf6b8fe36e663abd9a87cf76b9de) and see if the problem goes
away?

Thanks

Charles