From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Lamb Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do _not_ call unlink on a directory Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:58:57 -0700 Message-ID: <469BEA21.5080308@slamb.org> References: <11846059721204-git-send-email-sithglan@stud.uni-erlangen.de> <469BC17D.60806@slamb.org> <20070716200024.GD16878@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20070716202550.GH16878@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <469BE1D4.1070408@slamb.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Glanzmann , GIT To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 16 23:59:30 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IAYbH-0006Yd-Bk for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:59:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761212AbXGPV7Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:59:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755717AbXGPV7Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:59:24 -0400 Received: from hobbes.slamb.org ([208.78.103.243]:60018 "EHLO hobbes.slamb.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760796AbXGPV7X (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:59:23 -0400 Received: from spiff.local (ppp-71-139-183-188.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [71.139.183.188]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hobbes.slamb.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F8898105; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:59:21 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Macintosh/20070604) In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Scott Lamb wrote: >> But Solaris remove() is broken, too, so it's a moot point. > > In fact, with the Solaris behaviour for unlink(), you *cannot* have a > non-broken "remove()". I'd hoped to see that they made a new syscall to properly implement the new behavior. But they didn't. It reminds me of glibc's pselect(). Best regards, Scott -- Scott Lamb