[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ls when acl() is busy [was: ls slow on top-level directory]

From: Lasse
Subject: Re: ls when acl() is busy [was: ls slow on top-level directory]
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 22:03:25 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)

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...

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

I view the '+' as a reminder that "there's more to it than what is
shown" and I think that would be right thing to convey for busy files.

I think this behaviour would be the least surprising...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]