This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] ls & "magic" cygdrive dir (was: RE: cygdrive stuff)
On Tue, 2001-09-25 at 08:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:19:19AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> > From: "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin@cygwin.com>
> > > I don't want to define special requirements here. I'm just thinking
> > > that a file system fhandler like /dev should list the real files
> > > (if they exist) _and_ the virtual devices. I don't think that's
> > > a requirement for a /cygdrive fhandler or a /registry fhandler.
> > > They could but they don't have to.
> >
> > I think that this behaviour is fhandler dependant. I.e.
> >
> > I write a /registry fhandler. It _completely ignores_ any win32 fs
> > backing from the mount point. In this example, such merging of filenames
> > _will not_.
> >
> > You write a /dev fhandler. It _chooses to_ merge in any win32 fs backing
> > from the mount point down. In this example the user creating /dev/tty
> > will result in showing the file.
> >
> > The syscall core code, and the fhandler_base code _should not_ deal with
> > the special case that /dev is _choosing_ to allow.
> >
> > So as a spec:
> > * no merging of win32 backed paths/files into the fhandler's namespace
> > will occur _by default_.
> > * If a fhandler chooses to merge win32 backed paths/files into the
> > fhandlers namespace, that fhandler will be responsible for removing any
> > duplicate information.
> > * If there are win32 backed files in a given the fhandlers namespace,
> > system calls will go to the fhandler for resolution (ie as it does now).
> >
> > How does that sound? It allows your user to create files in /dev, if
> > /dev is written to allow that, and it does not require it.
>
> Isn't that what I said above?
Yes, I am trying to be ironclad to prevent confusion though. I wasn't
100% clear whether you meant that the core code should have any interest
in the backing store, and also what the default beahviour would be. I
find putting things into a general specfication with _no_ examples is
the easiest way prevent confusion.
Sorry if it was redundant.
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/