On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:41:41PM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote: > > 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? Other things being equal I still agree with you that there'd be advantages to being more consistent, so a changelog update would be fine. --b. -- 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
