Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:21:15 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: another instance of .. issues
Message-ID: <20060222182114.GC17360@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20060222173034 DOT GA18903 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <018701c637dc$17d1b530$a501a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT 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 AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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/