Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 17:12:27 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject: Re: Problems with autoconf-2.52 testsuite using current CVS Cygwin
Message-ID: <20010804171227.A4457@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
References: <3B64F567 DOT 6060304 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B65835C DOT 9000001 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B65A2B8 DOT 90702 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B66CC47 DOT 8040704 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B6711C9 DOT 6050700 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B6C3A4F DOT 3070502 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010804144307 DOT A3038 AT redhat DOT com> <20010804214843 DOT M23782 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010804155344 DOT A3559 AT redhat DOT com> <20010804221249 DOT O23782 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <20010804221249.O23782@cygbert.vinschen.de>; from vinschen@redhat.com on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 10:12:49PM +0200

On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 10:12:49PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 03:53:44PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 09:48:43PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >I guess you're right. It's probably the way ash uses vfork(). The
>> >interesting thing is that I even couldn't find the corresponding
>> >unlink()/rmdir() calls on the affected temp directories in the strace
>> >outputs.
>> >
>> >Strange enough, there _are_ actually `rm -rf' calls in the strace for
>> >some temporary directories but the concerned directories are actually
>> >erased. `rm' is never called for the not erased directories for some
>> >reason.
>> >
>> >If it's a problem with vfork() I would expect _failing_ unlink() calls
>> >due to still opened handle on files or similar. The fact that there
>> >are no unlink()s at all points to the vfork() usage in ash bypassing
>> >some important code.
>> >
>> >OTOH, it could also be the vfork() resulting in bypassing some 
>> >important code...
>> 
>> I thought that you saw stat calls for the files to be deleted and that
>> the stat calls were returning ENOENT.  That led me to believe that rm
>> was probably checking if the file exists before calling unlink().
>
>No. Ash calls stat() on a file in the dir which doesn't exist.

How does this differ from what I said?  Are you saying that the
directory doesn't exist rather than the file?  I thought that you
saw stat calls coming from rm.

cgf