From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Akshat Aranya <aaranya@cs.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Expected getdents behaviour
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:57:08 -0400
Message-ID: <e483447805091506573daebc21@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: Akshat Aranya <aaranya@cs.sunysb.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from xproxy.gmail.com ([66.249.82.200]:31627 "EHLO xproxy.gmail.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030421AbVION5L convert rfc822-to-8bit
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:57:11 -0400
Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id h32so103884wxd
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

I noticed that bonnie++, in its directory tests, does the following on
a large directory

open(dir);
while (getdents() != 0)
{
   unlink all the returned entries from getdents
}
close(dir);

My question is whether the filesystem's readdir is expected to
consider the offset value in the second readdir to still be valid,
given that entries from the directory were deleted after the first
readdir.

Akshat