From: Jeff Hostetler Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:25:20 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mingw: fix mingw_open_append to work with named pipes Message-ID: <26f3d84d-cfa4-bb03-a2f8-d2e0fe5ad12e@jeffhostetler.com> In-Reply-To: On 9/10/2018 6:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Sixt writes: > >>> +#define IS_SBS(ch) (((ch) == '/') || ((ch) == '\\')) > > I think you already have mingw_is_dir_sep() and its shorter alias > is_dir_sep() available to you. good catch. thanks. >>> +/* >>> + * Does the pathname map to the local named pipe filesystem? >>> + * That is, does it have a "//./pipe/" prefix? >>> + */ >>> +static int mingw_is_local_named_pipe_path(const char *filename) > > There is no need to prefix mingw_ to this function that is file > local static. Isn't is_local_named_pipe() descriptive and unique > enough? right. will do. >>> +{ >>> + return (IS_SBS(filename[0]) && >>> + IS_SBS(filename[1]) && >>> + filename[2] == '.' && >>> + IS_SBS(filename[3]) && >>> + !strncasecmp(filename+4, "pipe", 4) && >>> + IS_SBS(filename[8]) && >>> + filename[9]); >>> +} >>> +#undef IS_SBS > > It is kind-of surprising that there hasn't been any existing need > for a helper function that would allow us to write this function > like so: > > static int is_local_named_pipe(const char *path) > { > return path_is_in_directory(path, "//./pipe/"); > } > > Not a suggestion to add such a thing; as long as we know there is no > other codepath that would benefit from having one, a generalization > like that can and should wait. Yeah, I don't think we need something that general just yet. Named pipes exist in a special namespace using the UNC/network-share syntax (rather than the DOS drive-letter syntax), and we don't do much with UNC paths yet. Perhaps, later we could have something to try splitting a UNC path into , , and and then have is_local_named_pipe() verify the first 2 are as expected. Or have a function like is_path_in_volume(path, server, volume) that does the tests without cutting up strings and allocating. We could do either, but I don't think we need to be that general yet. Thanks, Jeff