On Tue, Jan 11, 2011, Eric Blake wrote about "Re: bug#7823: Rm -f fails on
non-existant file":
> Feel free to file a bug report to the smbfs people. POSIX does not
> specify EINVAL (except for bad flags to unlinkat), but does have a
> global clause that states that any errno not specifically listed may be
> returned if it is a better fit than any mandated error. On the other
> hand, the next version of POSIX will be mandating that the case of an
> unsupported byte in a filename ('*' in the case of smbfs) shall fail
> with EILSEQ, not EINVAL (that is, if they don't return the equally valid
> ENOENT failure). See http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=293, for
> justification why smbfs ought to change their errno value away from EINVAL.
Thanks, I'll look at how to send them a bug report as well.
> Yes, since POSIX doesn't specify EINVAL for any other situation, I see
> no harm in globally exempting it (with a comment why) in our source
> code; likewise, I see no problem in also adding EILSEQ to that list,
> whether or not smbfs also fixes their bug.
>
> Is it okay if I push this patch in your name?
Yes, looks good. Thanks.
Nadav.
--
Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Jan 11 2011, 6 Shevat 5771
[email protected] |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |"A mathematician is a device for turning
http://nadav.harel.org.il |coffee into theorems" -- P. Erdos
