Yes thats correct. I am planning to submit a patch that will add the test. Will
also address the symlink case.
-jojy
> On Mar 15, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply,
> visit:https://reviews.apache.org/r/44230/
> On March 15, 2016, 8:02 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> > Is it feasible/portable to have a test case for this change?
>
> Cong Wang wrote:
> Yes, like in our case, you can create some socket or device file and try
> to remove the directory contains it, it would fail without this patch.
>
>
Would be happy to add test. Patch forthcoming. Will also address FTS_SLNONE.
-Jojy
> On Mar 15, 2016, at 2:26 PM, David Robinson
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On March 15, 2016, 8:02 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
>>> Is it feasible/portable to have a test case for this change?
> On March 15, 2016, 8:02 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> > Is it feasible/portable to have a test case for this change?
>
> Cong Wang wrote:
> Yes, like in our case, you can create some socket or device file and try
> to remove the directory contains it, it would fail without this patch.
> On March 15, 2016, 8:02 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> > Is it feasible/portable to have a test case for this change?
Yes, like in our case, you can create some socket or device file and try to
remove the directory contains it, it would fail without this patch.
- Cong
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/44230/#review123735
---
Also, seems pretty clear we should handle `FTS_SLNONE`, as the
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/44230/#review123733
---
Is it feasible/portable to have a test case for this change?
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/44230/#review121524
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Jie Yu
On March 1, 2016, 10:01 p.m.,