On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, John Alton Tamplin wrote:
> > Since rmdir() doesn't delete it, I assume that means there is some entry
>
> Well, on linux atleast, rmdir() can fail with EBUSY:
>
>EBUSY pathname is the current working directory or root d
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, John Alton Tamplin wrote:
> Since rmdir() doesn't delete it, I assume that means there is some entry
> in the directory which wasn't deleted. Since you have apparently looked
> at this before, what is the cause? Is unlink failing on some file for
> some reason, or is it a ra
Rob Siemborski wrote:
We do currently call rmdir() on the directory.
The applicable code is in mailbox_delete() in mailbox.c if you'd like to
suggest a patch.
Since rmdir() doesn't delete it, I assume that means there is some entry
in the directory which wasn't deleted. Since you have appar
Rob Siemborski wrote:
Yeah, we know about this. There's no good way around it, since a totally
separate imapd could be selected on the folder as well, and the directory
would still be left around.
So is it ok to sweep the filesystem and delete any empty directories?
Would that leave a race c
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, John Alton Tamplin wrote:
> So is it ok to sweep the filesystem and delete any empty directories?
> Would that leave a race condition with an imapd creating a new folder?
Yes, it could.
> It seems like it should be safe to rmdir() the directory even if some
> process is sit
ers who's not
> subscribed directly to the list...
>
> Original Message
> Subject: delete selected folder leaves empty dir on disk
> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 13:26:24 -0500
> From: Christopher Schanzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
&g
I'm submitting a message from one of my co-workers who's not
subscribed directly to the list...
Original Message
Subject: delete selected folder leaves empty dir on disk
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 13:26:24 -0500
From: Christopher Schanzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
