=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> writes:
> Hmm, should the 'break's in the loop be 'continue's? If you're creating
> path a/b/c, and a concurrent process beats you but is only attempting to
> do a/b, then with the break you'll fail to create the final c.
Maybe I'm confused, but I think it's right as-is. The "break"s are
places where we're giving up and reporting a hard error. If we want
to continue to the next directory level, we just fall through ---
and doing that with "continue" would be wrong because it'd miss the
step at the bottom of the loop:
if (!last)
*p = '/';
regards, tom lane
