> On March 20, 2016, 2:36 a.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > Per discussion in https://reviews.apache.org/r/45003/, if we can actually > > run into `FTS_SLNONE`, we should have a test-case for it.
I dont think with FTS_PHYSICAL (and without FTW_COMFOLLOW) we will get FTS_SLNONE. I could be wrong but having a peek inside the glibc code for fts_open, I believe thats the case. - Jojy ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45002/#review124434 ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 18, 2016, 12:16 a.m., Jojy Varghese wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/45002/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 18, 2016, 12:16 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Neil Conway. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > According to the documentation for fts_open, either FTS_PHYSICAL or > FTS_LOGICAL > SHOULD be provided. We need FTS_PHYSICAL for the case of rmdir as we dont want > to resolve the symlink targets while deleting them. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/rmdir.hpp > cbc97596cd8ed1e6d4261568fd0086c86e063232 > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/os/rmdir_tests.cpp > daa46e05d113fd62ea9dad042ec41aaab28ad003 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45002/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check. > > > Thanks, > > Jojy Varghese > >
