On Feb 11 16:13, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > On Feb 10 17:13, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote: > > > make mappings linked list in order rather than reverse order. > > > > Why? I'm not asking for myself, but for the commit message. > > It may profit a lot from explaining what the change is supposed > > to accomplish. :) > > That's two good points: 1) I didn't write a proper commit message, I'll > do that for v3. but 2), why does the order of the list matter?
It doesn't. Or rather, it shouldn't. The drive letters were in order in /cygdrive just because of the algorithm evaluating available_drives. That's nice, but not essential. > On my > system, the order returned by the functions matches my "expected" order > (my C: comes before my D:), but I don't think there's any guarantee that > that will always be the case. I don't think it matters other than for > aesthetics though, The order in /proc/self/mounts on Linux is the order in which the drives got mounted. You don't get them sorted unless you pipe it through sort. That's ok with me. > but I don't know the motivation behind returning the > explicit mount entries in native_sorted order. Is there any reason why I > might need to sort the cygdrive mount entries? I could see that getting > complicated. No sorting necessary. I'm actually really only talking about the commit message. It should explain what you're doing and, especially, why. Btw.: - m->dospath = wcsdup (mounts); + if ((m->dos.path = (wchar_t *) malloc (len * sizeof (WCHAR)))) + memcpy (m->dos.path, mounts, len * sizeof (WCHAR)); A short comment preceding the above change along the lines of "store mount point list and split into dospath entries" wouldn t hurt. Corinna
