> "Steven N. Hirsch" <shirsch@ibm.net> writes:
>
> > The success of modprobe under the shell script started me thinking. I
> > renamed /sbin/modprobe to /sbin/modprobe.real and created a stub
> > /sbin/modprobe like this:
> >
> > #!/bin/sh
> > shift
> > /sbin/modprobe.real $*
>
> Ignoring for the moment the $*/"$@" issue (even though it's one of my
> pet peeves), this script has two effects: it throws away the first
> argument to modprobe (why?)
Why? Because the first argument is "/sbin/modprobe", the name of the
little script itself. Recursive death results if we try to call
ourselves.
> and it runs it as a child of an sh
> process. Have you determined which of those makes the difference?
> (To test just the first, exec modprobe.real
Which will accomplish nothing, as we have discarded the arguments to
modprobe.real.
> ; to test just the second,
> remove the shift.)
Locks up as it calls itself over and over and over...
> (Back to peeve:) As a general rule, you want "$@" instead of $* in sh
> scripts; $* goes through things like globbing and word splitting,
> which you don't want when you're passing all your arguments to
> something else.
>
> (Essentially, "$@" is equivalent to
> "$1" "$2" ...
> and $* is equivalent to
> $1 $2 ...)
Yes, you are correct. I generally use "$@", but since Adam had originally
provided the framework using "$*" I kept that form in there.
Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu