On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 12:58 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: > On 10/01/2013 12:49 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 12:15 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: > >> + int status; > >> + struct stat sb; > >> + > >> + memset(&sb, 0, sizeof(struct stat)); > >> + status = stat(path, &sb); > > > > Don't you want lstat() there? Also, I think *stat() is guaranteed to > > fill in all of sb if it returns anything other than an error, so the > > memset() may be redundant. > > > I was keeping the same code style from the file function in the same code. > > I chose to use stat() to maintain the same failure and error handling we > have currently.
I'm not quite sure I understand the last sentence you wrote above. Can you expand on why stat() rather than lstat() is the right thing? >I was attempting to get a point fix for the release, we can worry >about a more robust handling of the error / upgrade case in 1.5.1 >or 1.6. Righto. I am blissfully ignorant of the criteria for the release so I am happy to defer to your judgement on that. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
