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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

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/