[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ls when acl() is busy
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: ls when acl() is busy |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:16:44 +0200 |
address@hidden (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?