Re: another instance of .. issues

2006-02-22 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Feb 22 13:21, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 06:16:25PM -, 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: > >>>I think implementing openat() directly would be the clear win here,

Re: another instance of .. issues

2006-02-22 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 06:16:25PM -, 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("/p

RE: another instance of .. issues

2006-02-22 Thread Dave Korn
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 >>> effi

Re: another instance of .. issues

2006-02-22 Thread Christopher Faylor
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).

Re: another instance of .. issues

2006-02-22 Thread Brian Dessent
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 wi