Follow-up Comment #3, bug #29655 (project hurd):
Thanks for the review.
This patch (hopefully) clarifies the comment.
I don't understand your second point though. How can "linkat(...,
AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW)" be wrong? Do you mean that in that case with my patch,
file_name_lookup_at() will have O_NOLINK in flags and AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW in
at_flags, which is a bit contradictory, and that I should only pass O_NOLINK
in linkat() if AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW is not in its flags argument?
(file #20480)
_______________________________________________________
Additional Item Attachment:
File name: Fix-linkat-on-Hurd2.patch Size:2 KB
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?29655>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
