ls when acl() is busy
Lasse
lasse@yrk.dk
Thu Jun 30 18:38:00 GMT 2005
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/
More information about the Cygwin
mailing list