This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: When acl() returns -1


On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> 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.

At the risk of sounding trite, 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.

Even better.

> Any other opinion?

What does Linux do when it finds busy files (I think at least NFS allows
file locking).  Or does that locking not extend to retrieving ACLs?
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]