On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:06:18PM -0500, Mouse wrote: > >> According to the online OpenGroup specification for read(2) > >> available at [1], read(2) on directories is implementation > >> dependant. If unsupported, it shall fail with EISDIR. > > >> Not all our file systems comply, and return random errno values in > >> this case (mostly EINVAL or ENOTSUP). > > How does that not comply with "implementation dependent"? From a > standards-conformance point of view, that's equivalent to "in this > implementation, read(2) on directories is supported: on $FILESYSTEM, it > always returns EINVAL, on $OTHER_FILESYSTEM, it works according to > $REFERENCE; on $THIRD_FILESYSTEM, it always returns EOPNOTSUPP". > > This is not to say that it shouldn't be cleaned up. Just that I don't > think it's actually nonconformant.
Actually, it's filesystem implementation dependant to allow read(2) on directories; and if the implementation does not support it, it should fail with EISDIR. -- Nicolas Joly Projects and Developments in Bioinformatics Institut Pasteur, Paris.
