Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 05:32:52 +0400 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com>, bde@zeta.org.au, imp@harmony.village.org, steveo@eircom.net, david@catwhisker.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Message-ID: <20010618053251.B58432@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <p05100e0eb753048b371c@[128.113.24.47]>; from drosih@rpi.edu on Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 09:16:24PM -0400 References: <200106170518.f5H5I6V44586@harmony.village.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106172154520.582-100000@besplex.bde.org> <20010617113141A.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> <20010617231418.A60728@nagual.pp.ru> <200106172128.f5HLSe108208@earth.backplane.com> <p05100e0eb753048b371c@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010618053251.B58432>