Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: 	Tue, 8 May 2001 16:18:16 +0400
From: Konstantin Isakov <ikm AT online DOT ru>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.44)
Reply-To: Konstantin Isakov <ikm AT online DOT ru>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <2617786607.20010508161816@online.ru>
To: egor duda <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re[2]: Symlinking in win9x is now possible at kernel-level!
In-reply-To: <85685360846.20010508154854@logos-m.ru>
References: <2691945242 DOT 20010507230959 AT online DOT ru>
 <183627572852 DOT 20010507234546 AT logos-m DOT ru> <1545358323 DOT 20010508125109 AT online DOT ru>
 <38678244083 DOT 20010508135017 AT logos-m DOT ru> <14914348342 DOT 20010508152058 AT online DOT ru>
 <85685360846 DOT 20010508154854 AT logos-m DOT ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 3:48:54 PM, you wrote:

KI>> Of course. I don't want to say all native programs will run correctly.
KI>> But some of them will and in fact they do. The ability to turn
KI>> symlinking on/off dynamically allows all programs running properly
KI>> (but gives a headache for the user who has to turn them on/off ;)

ed> some programs may fail is some subtle way, making administration of
ed> such system rather painful. so, while being quite interesting from
ed> theoretical point of view, it's hardly applicable in real-life
ed> situations. 

It *is* applicable when you need to symlink one file to another for
*all* programs in Windows'9x, not only for cygwin's ports. Is it
really so hard to understand?

ed> well, how about normal cygwin's open() vs. CreateFile()+your driver?

It is exactly what I tested. ~1.2.

If you are intereseted in cygwin' open() + cygwin1.dll + my driver --
it is very slow, two times slower (don't know why, it should be faster).

ed> i don't expect big performance gain, because both approaches require
ed> reading first bytes of file, which may reside far away from the
ed> directory entry itself. but, i think that CreateFile()+driver should
ed> be somewhat faster.

I don't care of speed in this case, it can't be noticed by me in real life anyway.
If you care -- well, I can't help. I wrote that driver just because I need
it. And I thought it could be useful to somebody else. That's all about
this.


-- 
Konstantin Isakov



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple