This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: When acl() returns -1
On Jun 27 15:40, Dave Korn wrote:
> >From: Corinna Vinschen
> > So what's your opinion? Should acl()
> > keep its behaviour since it's not worth to change it for these files
> > which are locked anyway?
> > or should acl()
> > return the correct number of faked acl entries which pretend that
> > nobody has access to these (locked) files?
> How about keeping acl() the same, and fixing 'ls'?
Well... hmm, why not? Sounds good to me, too.
> ISTM that ls has all the information it should need to DTRT - a successful
> call to stat(), a return value of -1 from acl() and (I would hope that)
> errno has EACCES from the ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION return should let it
> deduce 'the file exists but is locked', shouldn't it?
Yes, except that ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION is translated to EBUSY.
Any other opinion?
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:email@example.com
Red Hat, Inc.