On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 01:47:13AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:15:56PM +0400, egor duda wrote: >>Hi! >> >>Thursday, 27 September, 2001 Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>>>do we need this "no free names" logic at all? the only suspicious >>>>place is fhandler_disk_file::open () where we were storing pointer to >>>>real_path's win32_path, so if it was changing later we were staying in >>>>sync with those changes. but i can't see why it may change after open >>>>is called, so making duplicate looks safe for me. Comments? >> >>CF> We've recently changed build_fhandler so that it probably isn't necessary >>CF> to use the no_free_names anymore. >> >>CF> I don't have a lot of time to investigate right now, but it's possible that >>CF> we can now get rid of this entirely. >> >>CF> So, I think your patch is probably overkill. >> >>? why overkill? i've just moved two identical pieces of code into >>separate routine and removed no_free_names checks. I was thinking it's >>rather "underkill" because no_free_names bit in flags are left intact. > >I didn't look closely at the patch but I thought that it was possible >that we don't need to unset it in two places.
I just wiped out big chunks of the fhandler code which dealt with the names allocation. It was quite satisfying. Corinna's idea of calling patch_conv "early" is really proving to simplify a lot of things -- most notably stat_worker(). I'm running the test suite now and fixing some last minute glitches but I expect to have something to check in tomorrow. cgf
