This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: ls when acl() is busy
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
[SNIP]
When a file is exclusivly locked by another application, then the
access to the ACL is entirely impossible. So we don't know anything
about the actual ACL. Cygwin's stat() returns with the POSIX permission
bits set to 000 in this case (which is still somewhat unfortunate, but
at least reflects the current situation from the processes' perspective).
So in some way the '+' is as wrong as the ' ', because we just don't
know. I understand Eric's idea of adding a '?' indicator for this
case, I just don't think it really helps the user.
How about ls simply displaying "----------+"? I think that's a
reasonably indication that "no, we can't determine the permissions" but
"yes, this file does have some permissions" (or it wouldn't be locked).
Whatever the result of this discussion is, the most important part is,
that the failing call to acl() shouldn't result in ls printing an error
message in this case.
Agreed.
/Lasse
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/