>> According to the online OpenGroup specification for read(2) >> available at [1], read(2) on directories is implementation >> dependant. If unsupported, it shall fail with EISDIR.
>> Not all our file systems comply, and return random errno values in >> this case (mostly EINVAL or ENOTSUP). How does that not comply with "implementation dependent"? From a standards-conformance point of view, that's equivalent to "in this implementation, read(2) on directories is supported: on $FILESYSTEM, it always returns EINVAL, on $OTHER_FILESYSTEM, it works according to $REFERENCE; on $THIRD_FILESYSTEM, it always returns EOPNOTSUPP". This is not to say that it shouldn't be cleaned up. Just that I don't think it's actually nonconformant. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B