Subject: Re: ls when acl() is busy
From: Larry Hall <[email-masked]>
To: Lasse <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:38:55 -0400

At 02:18 PM 6/30/2005, you wrote:
>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).

Because it's possible to have the permission string you stated above on 
a file which is not locked.  The point is, if the file is locked, we can't
say anything about the permissions and trying to indicate "the file is 
locked" by fiddling with the current set of available values isn't going
to be successful.  If you're looking for a way to be able to tell from 
'ls -l' whether a file's permissions are represented truthfully or not 
(because the file is locked), then Eric's proposal, or something like it,
is what you're looking for.

--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746                     

--
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/