On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Stefan Traby wrote:
> Calling pathconf with a symlink is not defined. I suggest
> an implementation of "yankee doodle" for that case.
> Anyway the broken SuS standard wants that pathconf follow symlinks.
> Or how do you interpret this:
>
> [ELOOP]
> Too many symbolic links were encountered in resolving path.
/a/b/c where b is a symlink to itself. Why?
> But Alan's case "out of filedescriptor" fully counts.
> Anyway, I personally would ignore it, but I agree, it's a completely
> valid argument.
Here's another one: suppose that /foo is a mountpoint and you have
no read permissions on it. Try to open the thing...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 15 2001 - 21:00:18 EST