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
Reply-To: Cygwin List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.0.20050628175506.03c66920@pop.prospeed.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:06:51 -0400
To: Lasse <lasse AT yrk DOT dk>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Larry Hall <lh-no-personal-replies-please AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: ls when acl() is busy [was: ls slow on top-level directory]
Cc: bug-coreutils AT gnu DOT org
In-Reply-To: <d9sa0v$va3$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <062820050324 DOT 16993 DOT 42C0C2EB00001A5B0000426122007610640A050E040D0C079D0A AT comcast DOT net>  <20050628083433 DOT GC5174 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>  <42C14C94 DOT 2040809 AT byu DOT net>  <d9sa0v$va3$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 04:03 PM 6/28/2005, you wrote:
>Eric Blake wrote:
>>According to Corinna Vinschen on 6/28/2005 2:34 AM:
>>
>>>However, IMHO, ls should be changed to just print no error message,
>>>if file_has_acl() returns -1 and errno is set to EBUSY, and the file
>>>should simply be treated as a file with no ACL.  That's the least
>>>intrusive way, IMHO.
>>Certainly less intrusive, but also potentially misleading.  The point of a
>>new character is to make it obvious that ls was unable to determine if
>>there are ACLs, rather than that the file has no alternate access.
>
>IMO, it should be the other way around, i.e. no error but a '+' to
>signify an ACL, for two reasons:
>
>1. Transperency. Since the UNIX permissions are emulated, one could
>argue that all files should have the '+' displayed...


Traditional UNIX permissions have always been represented by "drwxrwxrwx"
permission displays (yes, I know "s" and "t" are possible options in some
of the above locations).  ACLs are just different kinds of permissions that
don't obviously map into the traditional UNIX permissions.  UNIX permissions
do not imply or require the use of ACLs so using a '+' for all files would 
misleading.  Using '+' as you mentioned for all files displayed by Cygwin's
'ls' would actually make it less transparent, not more.
 

>2. Probability. If the file is busy there's good chance that the file
>has an ACL.


Actually no.  It just means the file is locked.  As Corinna pointed out, 
there is no distinction in Windows between the meta data and the file.
If the file is locked, the meta data is too and vice versa.  So a locked
file tells you nothing about the existence of ACLs on this file.



--
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/