On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 21:16:24 -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > When I say this, I assume that the only change to make is how any > 'open' or 'stat' call will handle null symlinks. If I am reading > Andrey correctly, there will be no change to the 'ln' command or > the symlink() system routine. Yes. > I generally prefer returning an error at the earliest point it can be > determined to be an error, and thus I think it IS worth it to make > this an error at open() or stat() time. I see no benefit in letting > those succeed only to have some strange error occur in later processing. Yes. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Matt Dillon
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Andrey A. Chernov
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Andrey A. Chernov
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Matt Dillon
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Andrey A. Chernov
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Matt Dillon
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Andrey A. Chernov
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Matt Dillon
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Andrey A. Chernov
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Garance A Drosihn
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Andrey A. Chernov
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Assar Westerlund
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Andrey A. Chernov
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Matt Dillon
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Brian F. Feldman
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Bruce Evans
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Garrett Wollman
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Brian F. Feldman
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Terry Lambert
- Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Bruce Evans