Carlos MartÃn Nieto <cmn@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> I don't think it is a bad idea per-se to avoid a copy from the same memory >> location into the same memory location, but independent of the necessity >> of fixes at the low-level, shouldn't we fix the callers that do not check >> if what they have is already absolute? > > If we'd like the semantics to be "whatever I had, I now know what the > absolute path is" then we could make the check in the beginning of the > function, to centralise the check. If the semantics should be "I don't > have an absolute path, so I need to figure out what it is", then there > should be a check before calling make_absolute_path() (the name suggests > the second). Good thinking, and I think the former semantics would be easier to use. > There is however the extra functionality the function offers, namely > resolving links. It might be good to split it into two functions so each > caller can specify what it wants. Probably. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html