> Dean Gaudet wrote:
>
> > Returning ENOENT when the parent exists is not compliant. This is the
> > type of kernel bug that's really annoying for application developers. "Oh,
> > if it's linux then I have to retry my open() in user-space if I get ENOENT
> > because they've got some fancy locking scheme and don't want to spend a
> > few cycles in the kernel being compliant"...
>
> Hi Dean,
>
> You might want to look at a few of the cases more closely before deciding that the
> kernel developers are just being lazy or parsimonious with CPU cycles. The ENOENT
> doesn't mean that the parent directory doesn't exist -- it means that the file that
> _used to exist_ is no longer in this directory, having been renamed or deleted.
Richard's example did this:
open (LOCKFILE, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_EXCL, S_IRWXU)
That's creating a file. For file creation the only valid ENOENT response
is for bogus pathnames (i.e. no parent directory). It doesn't matter if
the file used to exist or has been renamed, if LOCKNAME doesn't exist now
then that open call should succeed (modulo access rights/etc).
Dean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html