Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <3BAF9BCB.1070002@likai.net> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:47:07 -0400 From: Li-Kai Liu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010913 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: [PATCH] ls & "magic" cygdrive dir (was: RE: cygdrive stuff) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > >>I don't want to define special requirements here. I'm just thinking >>that a file system fhandler like /dev should list the real files >>(if they exist) _and_ the virtual devices. I don't think that's >>a requirement for a /cygdrive fhandler or a /registry fhandler. >>They could but they don't have to. >> >In the case of both /cygdrive and /registry, I simply wouldn't allow the >existance of real files - though Win32 will mess that up, ofcourse. > fhandlers only handle files, but they don't handle directories. directory enumeration is hard coded in the opendir/readdir calls in path.cc ... perhaps we should abstract the implementation of those two calls the same way as we abstracted fhandlers. say, we'll call it either dhandlers (directory handlers) or mhandlers (mount handlers). in this setup, the mount table (in registry) would specify the type of mount (eg, the handler). i would advocate having dhandlers/mhandlers borrowing the same design as fhandlers. first of all, do you people like calling it dhandlers better or mhandlers better? liulk -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/