> > !strcmp(ent->d_name, "bonding_masters")) continue; > > No. > > That wires in a particular name, and when the *next* weird file gets added > by some future kernel revision, we won't handle it, and would end up wiring > in another name, lather, rinse, repeat. > > Instead, it should ignore "." and "..", ignore all *plain files* (rather > than directories), and check whether there's a "subsystem" item underneath > the item (just in case there are directories, or symlinks that point to > directories, in there that *don't* correspond to devices, either now or in > the future). > >
Hmmm i recall on some systems they are symlinks not directories what about if they don't contain "subsystem" in the future? or older kernel versions that don't contain "subsystem" (do they?) ? or future versions that add subsystem to bonding_masters? i agree with the impetus of what you are saying, I just don't know where one would draw the line as to what CAN change and what CANNOT change and your line seems just as arbitrary actually i've had these very similar arguments a few times before -- do you see a general principle? -paul _______________________________________________ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
