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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ls & "magic" cygdrive dir (was: RE: cygdrive stuff)
From: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: Corinna Vinschen <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <20010925002207.H16412@cygbert.vinschen.de>
References: 
	<EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF7A32 AT itdomain002 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
	<20010924111806 DOT O17037 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<0cfd01c144dc$57e9ab70$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
	<20010924140127 DOT P17037 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<0d6101c144f2$411f4fb0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
	<20010924144046 DOT S17037 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<0d7e01c144f6$9aa5df50$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
	<20010924150136 DOT V17037 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<0f7701c14546$f4c939a0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> 
	<20010925002207 DOT H16412 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Evolution/0.13 (Preview Release)
Date: 25 Sep 2001 20:48:57 +1000
Message-Id: <1001414938.1761.49.camel@lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Sep 2001 10:56:35.0357 (UTC) FILETIME=[BE5F6CD0:01C145B0]

On Tue, 2001-09-25 at 08:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:19:19AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> > From: "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I think that this behaviour is fhandler dependant. I.e.
> > 
> > I write a /registry fhandler. It _completely ignores_ any win32 fs
> > backing from the mount point. In this example, such merging of filenames
> > _will not_.
> > 
> > You write a /dev fhandler. It _chooses to_ merge in any win32 fs backing
> > from the mount point down. In this example the user creating /dev/tty
> > will result in showing the file.
> > 
> > The syscall core code, and the fhandler_base code _should not_ deal with
> > the special case that /dev is _choosing_ to allow.
> > 
> > So as a spec:
> > * no merging of win32 backed paths/files into the fhandler's namespace
> > will occur _by default_.
> > * If a fhandler chooses to merge win32 backed paths/files into the
> > fhandlers namespace, that fhandler will be responsible for removing any
> > duplicate information.
> > * If there are win32 backed files in a given the fhandlers namespace,
> > system calls will go to the fhandler for resolution (ie as it does now).
> > 
> > How does that sound? It allows your user to create files in /dev, if
> > /dev is written to allow that, and it does not require it.
> 
> Isn't that what I said above?

Yes, I am trying to be ironclad to prevent confusion though. I wasn't
100% clear whether you meant that the core code should have any interest
in the backing store, and also what the default beahviour would be. I
find putting things into a general specfication with _no_ examples is
the easiest way prevent confusion. 

Sorry if it was redundant.

Rob


--
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/