Under any concurrent removeObjects in progress
might have removed the parents of the same prefix
for which there is an ongoing putObject request.
An inconsistent situation may arise as explained
below even under sufficient locking.
PutObject is almost successful at the last stage when
a temporary file is renamed to its actual namespace
at `a/b/c/object1`. Concurrently a RemoveObject is
also in progress at the same prefix for an `a/b/c/object2`.
To create the object1 at location `a/b/c` PutObject has
to create all the parents recursively.
```
a/b/c - os.MkdirAll loops through has now created
'a/' and 'b/' about to create 'c/'
a/b/c/object2 - at this point 'c/' and 'object2'
are deleted about to delete b/
```
Now for os.MkdirAll loop the expected situation is
that top level parent 'a/b/' exists which it created
, such that it can create 'c/' - since removeObject
and putObject do not compete for lock due to holding
locks at different resources. removeObject proceeds
to delete parent 'b/' since 'c/' is not yet present,
once deleted 'os.MkdirAll' would receive an error as
syscall.ENOENT which would fail the putObject request.
This PR tries to address this issue by implementing
a safer/guarded approach where we would retry an operation
such as `os.MkdirAll` and `os.Rename` if both operations
observe syscall.ENOENT.
Fixes#5254
kannappanr