On Friday 21 June 2013 13:43:28 Rich Felker wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 07:36:53PM +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > > > Thanks for the feedback, I just sent a third version. > > > > > > For my info: is the check on the symbolic link only present to skip > > > '.' and '..', or are there situations where /proc/<pid>/fd contains > > > other entries than symbolic links and the two default directory > > > entries? > > > > If it is only to skip . and .., and if we make an additional > > assumption that there will not be hidden files in /proc/<pid>/fd, then > > > the entire code can be reduced to: > I think it's a reasonable assumption that /proc/<pid>/fd does not > contain anything but symbolic links, ., and .., but even if something > else does exist, readlink will fail with EINVAL. That seems like a > more reasonable way to detect the unexpected case of something other > than symlinks being there.
that is a good idea indeed, thanks -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
