As much as I agree 0 might be a valid inode... I strongly suspect that 0 would be reserved for the boot sector or other filesystem tables. I'm not too worried that 0 is a valid file of anything other than '/'
Bill At 07:19 PM 12/18/2002, =?UTF-8?B?QnJhbmtvIMSMaWJlag==?= wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>At 11:48 AM 12/18/2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> >> >>>At 08:14 AM 12/18/2002, Philip Martin wrote: >>> >>> >>>>This is for dir.c version 1.71 with the patch reverted. The >>>>Subversion code is svn_io_get_dirents in subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c, >>>>it passes APR_FINFO_TYPE | APR_FINFO_NAME to apr_dir_read. The first >>>>two calls to apr_dir_read return "." and ".." and the Subversion code >>>>skips them, the following gdb information is for the third call >>>> >>>> >> >>,,, never mind my earlier questions. Committed a patch to ignore the >>results of d_type when it's DT_UNKNOWN (or a code we don't grok) >>and ignore the results of d_fileno/d_ino when the value is 0 or -1. >> >> >Yes, I'd figured on something like that being the correct fix. But I'm >not sure what to use as an invalid inode number; -1 almost certainly, >but I have a horrible suspicion that 0 might be a valid inode. > >-- >Brane Čibej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
