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. cgf
