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/ Thanks & have a nice day, Berny
