From owner-freebsd-current Fri Sep 7 1: 9: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2AF937B401; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f8788OT64094; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:08:29 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Peter Wemm Cc: "John W. De Boskey" , Current List Subject: Re: __getcwd & errno 20 (Not a directory) vfs_cache.c In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Sep 2001 23:50:17 PDT." <20010907065017.A22A6380C@overcee.netplex.com.au> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 10:08:24 +0200 Message-ID: <64092.999850104@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20010907065017.A22A6380C@overcee.netplex.com.au>, Peter Wemm writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> You are not supposed to call __getcwd() directly. > >Yes, but it would be an excellent junior-kernel-hacker task to make it work >in all cases, ie: manually searching parent directories. netbsd does this, >as does linux, and if we're going to emulate the linux getcwd(2) syscall >then we need it. The NetBSD code is probably a good place to start for >pointers, but it wont be directly usable due to name-cache differences. I fully agree, but that was not the subject :-) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message