delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com |
X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
In-Reply-To: | <20081202120840.GM12905@calimero.vinschen.de> |
References: | <4934461E DOT 5040708 AT t-online DOT de> <20081202120840 DOT GM12905 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> |
Date: | Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:38:01 +0100 |
Reply-To: | "Christian Franke" <Christian DOT Franke AT t-online DOT de> |
To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Subject: | Re: Avoid duplicate names in /proc/registry (which may crash find) ? |
From: | "Christian Franke" <Christian DOT Franke AT t-online DOT de> |
Message-ID: | <1L7VRx-1n5Cvw0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> |
X-IsSubscribed: | yes |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
List-Id: | <cygwin.cygwin.com> |
List-Unsubscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Archive: | <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs> |
Sender: | cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com |
Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Corinna Vinschen wrote: > ... > > Some random thoughts: > > - Do we really need d_type support in the registry? How often is that > actually used? > /proc/registry is probably rarely used, so d_type support is not important. But adding it would be trivial and the effect is significant: Speed up of "oldfind" (which does not crash :-) is >= 2. > - If find crashes in this situation, isn't this a bug in find which > should be fixed in find? > Yes. As far as I understand POSIX, it does not require "directory snapshot" semantics for readdir(). So if e.g. a directory "foo" is replaced by a file "foo" during a readdir() sequence, duplicate names with different d_type may occur (at least in theory :-) > - /proc/registry is a convenience for reading the registry. Due to > some funny definitions of the registry it's not a full solution. You > can't write this way, you can't even access the "(Default)" key > values. Access to (Default) works for me with "/proc/registry/.../key/@" > I personally don't worry if some border cases don't work. For the > border cases and for the full access we have regtool. > > Having said that, I really don't know what's the best solution for > these problems would be. None of the above ideas are very attractive. > For instance, in idea 1, the path would actually be > > /proc/registry/HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE.key/SOFTWARE.key/Cygwin.key/blub.val > or: 3. Add an extension (describing its type) to value only: /proc/registry/HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE/Cygwin/blub.type But then a possible "somekey.type" should be escaped ... > Shouldn't we rather defer these border cases to regtool? > Yes, further enhancements to /proc/registry are probably not worth the effort. Hmm... "/proc/registry/..." pathnames as an alternative for the KEY/VALUE parameters of regtool would allow to use shell tab-completion and therefore enhance usability (?). Christian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |