Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 17:33:51 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: findutils vs. /proc/registry Message-ID: <20050808153351.GE14783@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <42F75183 DOT 6010804 AT byu DOT net> <20050808133156 DOT GB14783 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050808133156.GB14783@calimero.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i On Aug 8 15:31, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Aug 8 06:35, Eric Blake wrote: > > I traced this to the fact that findutils() expects open(".", O_RDONLY) to > > succeed if a directory is readable (and that is my reading of POSIX as > > well), but cygwin is failing with EISDIR. Is there any way cygwin can be > > patched to allow open(".", O_RDONLY) to succeed? > > Just so that nobody gets a wrong impression, open(".", O_RDONLY) only > fails in some deeper virtual dirs, mainly in /proc/registry, but also > in /proc//fd. I'll look into this one. I've checked in a patch. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat, Inc. -- 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/