Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:51:12 -0500 From: Chris Faylor To: Corinna Vinschen Cc: cygdev Subject: Re: access-patch Message-ID: <20000110155112.A17460@cygnus.com> Mail-Followup-To: Corinna Vinschen , cygdev References: <387A450F DOT 6F2F272A AT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <387A450F.6F2F272A@vinschen.de>; from corinna@vinschen.de on Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 09:46:07PM +0100 On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 09:46:07PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >+ if (os_being_run == winNT && allow_ntsec) >+ return acl_access (fn, flags); Is there any reason for the "os_being_run" test? I don't see it anywhere else in the code. If this is required we should probably handle it one time early on rather than always checking for it in access(). cgf