On 10/20/11 17:06, Eric Blake wrote:
>> So far, I've seen only Cygwin mentioned.
>> Where does it happen in a typical GNUish environment?
>
> Try the same exercise using NFSv2 or NFSv3 mounts
I don't see why NFSv3 or v3 would be different.
I just tried your test case with an NFSv3 mount
(RHEL 5.7
On 10/20/2011 06:06 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
Try the same exercise using NFSv2 or NFSv3 mounts (NFSv4 is getting
closer to POSIX compliance, but I don't know if it will handle this any
better). I suspect that it would be possible to find a testcase under
Linux and Solaris clients using a less-than-s
On 10/20/2011 05:46 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
It's more than just cygwin.
So far, I've seen only Cygwin mentioned.
Where does it happen in a typical GNUish environment?
Try the same exercise using NFSv2 or NFSv3 mounts (NFSv4 is getting
closer to POSIX compliance, but I don't know if it will ha
On 10/20/11 12:57, Eric Blake wrote:
> That's because it's a shall fail, not a may fail error:
>
> [EBUSY]
> The directory to be removed is currently in use by the system
> or some process and the implementation considers this to be an error.
But "in use by" does not mean "accessed by an open
fil
