This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Patch] cygcheck: warn about trailing (back)slash on mount entries

Op Wed, 06 Oct 2004 12:00:15 -0400 schreef Pierre A. Humblet
in <>:
:  Christopher Faylor wrote:
: >
: > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 11:30:17AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
: >>
: >> Christopher Faylor wrote:
: >>>
: >>> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 03:12:45PM +0200, Bas van Gompel wrote:
: >>>> Another (hopefully trivial) patch, to help in trouble-shooting.
: >>>
: >>> Wasn't there another problem where "foo\/bar" type of entries were
: >>> showing up?  Could you add a check for that, too?

I think so.

Would it also be of interest to check for forward slashes in the
native-, and backslashes in the posix-path?

: >> I while ago I have modified Cygwin to accept this kind of syntax.
: >> Is there a remaining problem in the current release?
: >> Otherwise I don't see the need to alarm the user.
: >
: > It's just a warning.  This really shouldn't be in the mount table
: > and it really should be corrected.
:  I don't think it's checking the mount table, it's checking the registry.


:  The entry will be cleaned up by the time it gets to the mount table.

Is that a reason to not /attempt/ to ensure the entries in the registry
are correct? One might consider writing back the cleaned up entries to
the registry.

:  What would be useful is a check that ::add_item will accept the registry
:  entry, i.e. won't return EINVAL or perhaps "path too long".

mount_info::add_info is not available when running cygcheck, it being
a mingw app. (BYKT)

:  The relevant part of add_item is pasted below. It shows when EINVAL
:  is returned.

The resulting patch would not be trivial, so I can't be submitting it,
as long as i've not received any reply from the Red Hat legal team on
my query. (I don't want to cause the patch to become inadmissible.)


BTW: Any reason for not applying the trailing-slash patch? (If I were
to add any of the here discussed, I would expect to be (rightly) told
to split the patch into functionally distinct parts.)


  ) |  | ---/ ---/  Yes, this | This message consists of true | I do not
--  |  |   /    /   really is |   and false bits entirely.    | mail for
  ) |  |  /    /    a 72 by 4 +-------------------------------+ any1 but
--  \--| /--- /---  .sigfile. |   |perl -pe "s.u(z)\"    | me. 4^re

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]