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

Lasse lasse@yrk.dk
Thu Jun 30 18:39:00 GMT 2005


Larry Hall wrote:
> At 04:03 PM 6/28/2005, you wrote:
[SNIP]
>>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...
> 
> Traditional UNIX permissions have always been represented by "drwxrwxrwx"
> permission displays (yes, I know "s" and "t" are possible options in some
> of the above locations).  ACLs are just different kinds of permissions that
> don't obviously map into the traditional UNIX permissions.  UNIX permissions
> do not imply or require the use of ACLs so using a '+' for all files would 
> misleading.  Using '+' as you mentioned for all files displayed by Cygwin's
> 'ls' would actually make it less transparent, not more.

That's not what I meant. My point was that since all files (natively)
have ACLs, tt makes sense to assume that a locked file has an ACL.

>>2. Probability. If the file is busy there's good chance that the file
>>has an ACL.
> 
> Actually no.  It just means the file is locked.  As Corinna pointed out, 
> there is no distinction in Windows between the meta data and the file.
> If the file is locked, the meta data is too and vice versa.  So a locked
> file tells you nothing about the existence of ACLs on this file.

See my other post in this thread.

-- 
/Lasse


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/



More information about the Cygwin mailing list