Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Jim Meyering <jim AT meyering DOT net>
To:	ericblake AT comcast DOT net (Eric Blake)
Cc:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, bug-coreutils AT gnu DOT org
Subject:	Re: ls when acl() is busy
In-Reply-To:	<062820050324.16993.42C0C2EB00001A5B0000426122007610640A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net> (Eric Blake's message of "Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:24:27 +0000")
References:	<062820050324 DOT 16993 DOT 42C0C2EB00001A5B0000426122007610640A050E040D0C079D0A AT comcast DOT net>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:16:44 +0200
Message-ID:	<85slz0dztf.fsf@pi.meyering.net>
Lines:	21
MIME-Version:	1.0

ericblake AT comcast DOT net (Eric Blake) wrote:
...
> Hmm - murky waters here.  It would be a simple one-line fix to
> coreutils/lib/acl.c to ignore EBUSY as a non-error, and POSIX has
> no requirements per se that a failure of acl() should imply a failure
> of ls(1).  Should a busy file be conservatively treated as having an
> ACL (designated with '+' in the mode string) or left alone without

If acl failing with EBUSY is a reliable indicator that there is
indeed an ACL, then using the `+' mark sounds best.  It's also
a little easier since we wouldn't have to document the meaning
of a nonstandard `?'.

> one (designated with ' ' in the mode string) when cygwin is unable
> to query Windows without blocking for an undue length of time?
> Right now, I'm almost leaning for a third option, and displaying '?'
> or some other character to mean unable to determine, but that
> would be more work (the gnulib library file_has_acl already returns
> -1 on failure, 0 on no ACL, and 1 on ACL; perhaps make it return
> 2 on indeterminate).  Should such a change be propagated to
> coreutils and gnulib, or left as a cygwin-local patch?

--
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/

- Raw text -