On Fri, 29.05.15 17:22, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote: > Hello, > > Lennart Poettering [2015-05-28 19:44 +0200]: > > I really think this should work as close as the usual *at() calls > > work. i.e. take a dir fd as first argument, and a filename > > *within*that*directory* to check. Maybe even give it the _at() suffix: > > > > int fd_is_mount_point_at(int fd, const char *filename, int flags); > > int path_is_mount_point(const char *path, int flags); > > > > path_is_mount_point() simply seperates the last part of the path, > > opens its parent directory, and then invokes fd_is_mount_point_at() > > with the parent dir and the last component... > > Done now, this indeed looks much better now, avoids the "have parent > or not" cases. > > This patch keeps the signature of path_is_mount_point(), as that's > being used in a lot of places. For simpler revivewing I'll send that > as a second patch. This updates fd_is_mount_point_at() to behave like > openat() and work for files again, fixing the regression.
One minor nitpick: > > fallback_fstat: > - if (fstatat(fd, "", &a, AT_EMPTY_PATH) < 0) > + /* yay for fstatat() taking a different set of flags than the other > + * _at() above */ > + if (flags & AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW) > + flags = flags & ~AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW; > + else > + flags |= AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW; > + if (fstatat(fd, filename, &a, flags) < 0) > return -errno; I think this: flags = flags & ~AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW; should better be written like this: flags &= ~AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW; this matches the other if branch better then... Looks good otherwise, please push. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel