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.