Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Sat, 4 Aug 2001 23:37:01 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <vinschen AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject:	Re: Problems with autoconf-2.52 testsuite using current CVS Cygwin
Message-ID:	<20010804233701.A21591@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygdev <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Mail-Followup-To:	Corinna Vinschen <vinschen AT redhat DOT com>,
	cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
References:	<3B65835C DOT 9000001 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B65A2B8 DOT 90702 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B66CC47 DOT 8040704 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B6711C9 DOT 6050700 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B6C3A4F DOT 3070502 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010804144307 DOT A3038 AT redhat DOT com> <20010804214843 DOT M23782 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010804155344 DOT A3559 AT redhat DOT com> <20010804221249 DOT O23782 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010804171227 DOT A4457 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To:	<20010804171227.A4457@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 05:12:27PM -0400

On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 05:12:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 10:12:49PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 03:53:44PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 09:48:43PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> >I guess you're right. It's probably the way ash uses vfork(). The
> >> >interesting thing is that I even couldn't find the corresponding
> >> >unlink()/rmdir() calls on the affected temp directories in the strace
> >> >outputs.
> >> >
> >> >Strange enough, there _are_ actually `rm -rf' calls in the strace for
> >> >some temporary directories but the concerned directories are actually
> >> >erased. `rm' is never called for the not erased directories for some
> >> >reason.
> >> >
> >> >If it's a problem with vfork() I would expect _failing_ unlink() calls
> >> >due to still opened handle on files or similar. The fact that there
> >> >are no unlink()s at all points to the vfork() usage in ash bypassing
> >> >some important code.
> >> >
> >> >OTOH, it could also be the vfork() resulting in bypassing some 
> >> >important code...
> >> 
> >> I thought that you saw stat calls for the files to be deleted and that
> >> the stat calls were returning ENOENT.  That led me to believe that rm
> >> was probably checking if the file exists before calling unlink().
> >
> >No. Ash calls stat() on a file in the dir which doesn't exist.
> 
> How does this differ from what I said?  Are you saying that the
> directory doesn't exist rather than the file?  I thought that you
> saw stat calls coming from rm.

As I wrote above "`rm' is never called for the not erased directories".
It's `ash' which calls stat() on a file in a directory which later
isn't erased. All `rm' calls in the strace are unrelated to the non-
erased directories so the stat() calls in `rm's are unrelated as well.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.

- Raw text -