From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 17 May 2001 08:47:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 17 May 2001 08:46:54 -0400 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:34798 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 17 May 2001 08:46:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 14:46:07 +0200 (MET DST) From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Message-Id: To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, viro@math.psu.edu Subject: Re: Bug in unlink error return Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > IMO that's the case of POSIX being misapplied. Rationale: > * historically, ... Yes, I know all about that. Nevertheless the facts are here: EPERM The system does not allow unlinking of directories, or unlinking of directories requires privileges that the current process doesn't have. (This is the POSIX prescribed error return.) EISDIR pathname refers to a directory. (This is the non- POSIX value returned by Linux since 2.1.132.) At first I wrote "buggy" instead of "non-POSIX", but in fact I prefer EISDIR myself. On the other hand, Linux follows POSIX, even in the cases where we don't like POSIX very much. Btw - this change in 2.1.132 actually broke programs, so at that time is was really the introduction of a bug. Andries