On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 02:42:12PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Corinna Vinschen" >To: <cygwin-patches@cygwin.com> >Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 12:48 PM >Subject: Re: [Patch]: mkdir -p and network drives > > >> Hi Pierre, >> >> I don't see a reason why you moved telldir just a few lines up. >> Any reasoning, perhaps together with a ChangeLog entry? > >Nope, it was an accidental cut and I pasted it back a few lines off. > >> >> Why did you remove fhandler_cygdrive::telldir but not >> fhandler_cygdrive::seekdir? Both are just calling their base class >> variants. > >I am still working on fhandler_cygdrive. I stopped to keep the size >of the patch small. > >> > - else if (isvirtual_dev (dev.devn) && fileattr == >INVALID_FILE_ATTRIBUTES) >> > - { >> > - error = dev.devn == FH_NETDRIVE ? ENOSHARE : ENOENT; >> > - return; >> > - } >> >> I don't understand this one. What's the rational behind removing >> these lines? > >- They won't work the day we support writing to the registry. >- More generally, I think it's cleaner to do device specific error handling >in the fhandlers, instead of adding conditionals in path.cc >- In the case where one tries to create a file or directory on a virtual >device, >one gets EROFS with this patch, instead of ENOSHARE or ENOENT before. >That seems more logical.
I checked in part of your patch last week and most of the rest today. I don't agree that "EROFS" is more logical than "ENOSHARE" since ENOSHARE is a more specific error message which provides more information to the user. So, I have left path.cc intact. Thanks for the patch. cgf