X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:message-id:from:to:subject
	:content-type:date:in-reply-to:references; q=dns; s=default; b=v
	u2wfN69gPlR0al2zbzl7OquzL3Te5LdKlQovI9mG7jNFQwdG7c5sW9J+2iKhnHL+
	O8gzW7vmxME769m8pAhYkq4n+1Ti0mWRLS28q/6E3oXl6vvgvBn9c+zI/UVLYhod
	e/Mumtlkpl7ha9HWRcIme2bIZJGQg2j7hXUhfdg4B8=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:message-id:from:to:subject
	:content-type:date:in-reply-to:references; s=default; bh=HVY3XgH
	j6VPXDpSz+0T/cXbMnu8=; b=U6XKTYVOAlxteb+fM0Nfv/hvW2forkXTlonSqF5
	HvrAdl2JjwhEVpQg763sSF4ygg2ITyX3OSS5tu0HG8RrQDRXqKxNMmExVHT8R480
	8QMz3+QhnmrY6neD+aE7sDMVW+vDtFFPEZL3UWMVqBPaBmMO4IzgY8lF20Rxt7QT
	1E7A=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.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
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=much!, much, Hey
X-HELO:	mout.gmx.net
MIME-Version:	1.0
Message-ID:	<trinity-f54243ce-a7a4-4920-b65d-c52cb591d70c-1528879699023@3c-app-gmx-bs06>
From:	"Sven Eden" <sven DOT eden AT gmx DOT de>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Problematic interpretion of paths starting with double slashes
Date:	Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:48:19 +0200
Sensitivity:	Normal
In-Reply-To:	<7a4567bc-3312-2da5-9e74-46afafa09fc1@redhat.com>
References:	<trinity-82173dac-d842-4a87-8d1f-bed9a958d178-1528793630066 AT 3c-app-gmx-bs08> <dc8418d2-2004-97f0-2d8c-ab438f007eba AT redhat DOT com> <trinity-2aa37c55-032a-4631-9d8f-657ecd85e170-1528809265158 AT 3c-app-gmx-bs08> <7a4567bc-3312-2da5-9e74-46afafa09fc1 AT redhat DOT com>
X-UI-Message-Type:	mail
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

> Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. Juni 2018 um 19:56 Uhr
> Von: "Eric Blake" <eblake AT redhat DOT com>
> On 06/12/2018 08:14 AM, Sven Eden wrote:
> 
> Good style is nice, but in my book, it is trumped by correct code.

Yeah. Point taken. :-D


> Hey, let's all assume good intent here. I did not mean what I wrote as
> an attack against you, nor am I accusing you of writing the said code,
> only that the code you are trying to use (shorthand "your code") is
> relying on something non-portable, and is therefore worth improving,
> regardless of whether Cygwin also makes a change. I apologize if my
> words have come across in a different tone than intended (email tends to
> be a lousy medium in that regards). And likewise, I'm not upset at your
> reaction to my words.

*sigh* ... you are absolutely correct of course.

In hindsight, I interpreted more into written words than was
available. I am sorry and apologize for being so "touchy". 


> >>> My question therefore is, whether the behavior can be gotten
> >>> nearer what every other GNU/Linux system does.
> >>> Maybe, if said first component can not be resolved as an smb
> >>> host, try an absolute path instead?
> >>
> >> That won't work as nicely as you want, because you will introduce long
> >> timeouts for every time that Cygwin first has to ascertain that '//tmp'
> >> does not exist as a remote host. Maybe we could indeed make '//tmp'
> >> resolve to '/tmp' if there is no remote '//tmp' available, but the speed
> >> penalties in doing so will not make it pleasant.
> >
> > The speed penalties would only apply if
> > a) "Something" looks up //foo/bar
> > b) "Something" made a mistake and actually wanted
> > /foo/bar
> >
> > So apart from the speed penalty that "Something" has to
> > suffer, and its their own damn fault, the only real
> > consequence would be that "Something" does not die from
> > ENOENT any more.
> 
> Indeed, and you may have a valid argument for making that change in
> Cygwin; patches are certainly welcome (that is, since //tmp is already
> implementation-defined behavior, we can define it to attempt to resolve
> to the remove host first, and on ENOENT then attempt to resolve it
> locally). It does have one potential minor drawback: right now, at
> least bash hard-codes the assumption that on Cygwin, //foo and //foo/
> resolve identically (that is, IF //foo exists, it necessarily behaves as
> a directory), using that assumption to reduce the need for network
> queries during certain forms of tab completion. If we add the fallback
> to trying /foo, that assumption is no longer always the case (it could
> be a regular file, symlink, socket, ...).

Hmm... that's a good point. So implemeting such a fallback
can only be done for anything that is at least "//foo/".


> > Am I right that the relevant stuff can be found in
> > winsup/cygwin?
> 
> Yes.

Then I'll add experimenting with that idea on my TODO list.


Thank you very much!


Regards

Sven

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -