Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... >> What you're saying here is inconsistent with the strace snippet you posted >> showing the offending lstat and open with almost no intervening syscalls. >> Perhaps you edited it and forgot to indicate that? > > No I didn't edit. You're right, that my snippet does not indicate > such a case. > > However it _does_ happen for the top level directory (as you have > said) that the inital lstat may be performed much earlier, than > actually opening that directory. That is the _real_ problem.
That's close. To clarify: with the current fts implementation, the interval between the initial lstat and subsequent open of the same directory may be arbitrarily long, but only for 2nd or subsequent command-line arguments -- which usually translates to 2nd or subsequent members of the argv array that is passed to fts_open.
