Date: Thursday, February 08, 2024 16:25 PM
To: bug-gnulib@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Possible bug in qcopy-acl.cI forwarded a file to you
yesterday. Have iit come to you?
https://hiddenwaterswellness.com/ki9f/?52904332
-------------------------
I am not sure if I understand.
I meann, we have to call file-has-acl()function there anyway right?
If it returns 0 then we are can also return the function as there is
nothing else to do (well unless the dst file exists and has ACLs on it
already).
If it returns 1, then we probably don't care about few more yscalls because
in most cases we copy files w/o acls.
Ondrej
Zaslno z
-------------------------
From: Paul Eggert
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2024 8:20:12 PM
To: Ondrej Valousek
Cc: Gnulib bugs
Subject: Re: Possible bug in qcopy-acl.c
On 2024-09-01 04:24, Ondrej Valousek wrote:
The disadvantage of it would be the additional call for file-has-acl() so
hence few more kernel calls.
Can the extra syscalls be avoided by migrating/copying some of
file-has-acl.c's functionality into qcopy-acl.c? The idea would be to
invoke listxattr just once in the usual case, to handle both
file_has_acl checking and qcopy_acl copying.
