X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:21:15 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: another instance of .. issues Message-ID: <20060222182114.GC17360@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20060222173034.GA18903@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <018701c637dc$17d1b530$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <018701c637dc$17d1b530$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 06:16:25PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote: >On 22 February 2006 17:31, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 08:21:48AM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote: >>>Eric Blake wrote: >>>>and/or have openat() implemented directly in cygwin so that the openat >>>>emulation of open("/proc/self/fd/4/..") is avoided (not to mention more >>>>efficient by avoiding several other syscalls during the emulation). >>> >>>I think implementing openat() directly would be the clear win here, >>>since the ".." processing seems to be such a landmine. Of course >>>without a patch this is just hot air on my part. >> >>But, then, it has been at least a couple of months since we've had a >>rousing discussion about how awful cygwin's '..' handling is, so it's >>clearly time to go into great depth about how useful it would be if >>cygwin just did things the RIGHT, the TRUE, the POSIX way. > >How many reinstalls does that usually take? ;-) You take the number of cygwin developers required to change a POSIX-powered light bulb and multiply by 42. cgf -- 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/