On 2020-03-06 08:31, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > On 2020-03-06 02:27, Paul Eggert wrote: >> On 3/5/20 1:43 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: >> >>> Why is this code even there at all? If readdir(3) says that the current >>> directory has no entries, shouldn't 'ls' just say that? Why should ls >>> report an error simply because the current directory isn't reachable >>> from the filesystem? Whether the current directory is unreachable has >>> nothing to do with ls's job, which is to report whether the current >>> directory has entries. >> >> Attached is a proposed patch to fix this. > > I tend to agree (now): returning an error when there was none seems at least > unlucky. Sorry I didn't comment in the original discussion. > >> diff --git a/tests/ls/removed-directory.sh b/tests/ls/removed-directory.sh > > That test was also added in commit 05a99f7d7f8e, so the the description > at the top does not match after reverting: > > #!/bin/sh > # If ls is asked to list a removed directory (e.g. the parent process's > # current working directory that has been removed by another process), it > # emits an error message. > > s/emits/shall not emit/
P.S. Also the check for $host_triplet containing 'linux' in test is: a) no longer needed, and b) looks like a good argument to revert 05a99f7d7f8e, because it introduced different (and user-visible) behavior just because of the platform. Have a nice day, Berny
