CVS update: samba/source/smbd

[jra at dp.samba.org]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:40:08PM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
> give me time :))
> I had a very similar pacth in my queue with lp_unhidespecial option.
> Also I changed the hide veto files sematics on purpose!
> 
> however, if you are happy with this one I'm fine, I only do not like at
> all the fact that you have dependencies on the stat and name created by
> previous functions, It asks for bugs.
> 
> If you do not know that you can fuck the pst structure by later changes
> in functions and the second call will not work, the same is for name.
> 
> do you have any objections if I movr back outside that functions the
> stat? (Their place is really outside that functions imho)
> 
> Also making a new function call only to do 3 ifs seem to much to me.

Actually I'd prefer you leave the current code alone.

This is a similar style to one I have used elsewhere in Samba, it
is designed to reduce the number of stat calls.

stat is the most heavily used system call in Samba, it's performance,
and avoidance are critical performance fixes for us.

The extra function makes the code symmetrical. Ask tridge for his
opinion on functions :-) :-).

Jeremy.