On Jul 8, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:47:22PM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote: > >> I wonder if people just accept that "NFS is just weird" and code in workarounds, >> where as with Lustre we promise (almost) full POSIX compliance, and also came much later >> so people are just seeing that "this does not work" and complain more loudly? > > To quote POSIX: "If more than one error occurs in processing a function call, > any one of the possible errors may be returned, as the order of detection is > undefined." (from System Interfaces: General Information: 2.3 Error Numbers) > > And regarding mkdir(2) it has > [EACCES] > Search permission is denied on a component of the path prefix, or write > permission is denied on the parent directory of the directory to be created. > [EEXIST] > The named file exists. > among the error conditions. In situations when both apply, the implementation > is bloody well allowed to return either. It might be nicer to return EEXIST > in such cases, for consistency sake (if another thread does stat() on the > pathname in question just as you are about to call mkdir(2), you will get > EEXIST without ever reaching permission(9), let alone ->mkdir() method), but > please do not bring POSIX compliance as an argument. It's a QoI argument and > nothing beyond that. Ok, I see. Thanks. Bruce, do you want the patch resubmitted with a rewritten commit message, or do you think it's best to just drop it them? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
