Another version of the patch was allready commited - look here https://dev.openwrt.org/changeset/25540
Am Dienstag, 15. Februar 2011, 20:09:44 schrieb Philip Prindeville: > On 2/15/11 2:13 AM, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > > Peter Wagner<[email protected]> writes: > >> - [ -n "$leasefile" ]&& [ -e "$leasefile" ] || touch "$leasefile" > >> + [ -n "$leasefile" ]&& ( [ -e "$leasefile" ] || touch > >> "$leasefile" ) > > > > Looks like this is fixed already by commit 15fba44a (but see point 6 of > > http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls and the rest for an interesting > > read) so the following is academic, but I typed it before checking... > > > > It's cheeper to use braces in such cases to avoid subshell creation: > > [ -n "$leasefile" ]&& { [ -e "$leasefile" ] || touch > > "$leasefile"; } > > > > Btw. is the -e test really necessary? Why not simply > > > > [ -n "$leasefile" ]&& touch "$leasefile" > > > > ? > > Well, to use your own point... why create an extra process to "touch" a > file that already exists? > > And if it does exist, do you necessarily want to modify the timestamp on > it? > > I don't like using "-e" because what happens if the name exists, but it's a > directory or a socket or a block file... > > Why not use "-f" instead? > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
