Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2007-03-06 15:17:07 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Such "remembering" would be prohibitively expensive, in general. > > I don't see why.
Remembering means storing names, potentially many of them. That's why it would be prohibitively expensive. > In fact, it isn't necessarily useful to remember anything. > When rm attempts to remove a file in a recurse phase, > no errors should be reported if the file doesn't exist. No. Any POSIX-conforming rm implementation is required to report such errors, unless you specify -f. >> It sounds like your client NFS implementation's cache is not coherent, > > This is a feature of NFS. [btw, the above is an incomplete quote of what I wrote.] No, it's not (because of the qualifying phrase you omitted). > A full-synchronized NFS implementation > would be too slow (if not impossible, due to race conditions). No one is advocating a fully-synchronized NFS implementation. When an NFS client sees a successful unlink, it is reasonable to expect a client-side rewinddir/readdir sequence *not* to produce the just-unlinked name. I hope this sort of coherence (between an unlink syscall and a subsequent rewinddir/readdir) is guaranteed by a standard. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
