X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <26226433.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 19:38:15 -0800 (PST) From: aputerguy To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Is there a fast way to get acl's for the whole filesystem (or chunk thereof) In-Reply-To: <6fv6f5dgkrgi6baa9ghfjaqp7h9a3eq9pj@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <26222793 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <6fv6f5dgkrgi6baa9ghfjaqp7h9a3eq9pj AT 4ax DOT com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Andrew Schulman-3 wrote: > getfacl -R? Unfortunately, no '-R' at least on my updated version. The "-exec ... \+" and the "-print0 | xargs -0" tricks both worked!!! Thanks. Timing and comparing the two approaches, it seems like they both use the same 'user' time but the xargs approach uses only about half the 'system' time. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Is-there-a-fast-way-to-get-acl%27s-for-the-whole-filesystem-%28or-chunk-thereof%29-tp26222793p26226433.html Sent from the Cygwin list mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple