When acl() returns -1

Corinna Vinschen corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Mon Jun 27 14:55:00 GMT 2005

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:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list