From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Nov 26 14:24:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 931) id 99B7037B401; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:24:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:24:54 -0800 From: Juli Mallett To: Robert Watson Cc: bsd@xtremedev.com, questions@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.0-DP2 ACLs on UFS2 Message-ID: <20021126142454.A76195@FreeBSD.org> References: <20021125055024.H42486-100000@Amber.XtremeDev.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from rwatson@freebsd.org on Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 05:18:13PM -0500 Organisation: The FreeBSD Project X-Alternate-Addresses: , , , , X-Towel: Yes X-LiveJournal: flata, jmallett X-Negacore: Yes Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * De: Robert Watson [ Data: 2002-11-26 ] [ Subjecte: Re: 5.0-DP2 ACLs on UFS2 ] > ACLs should work fine on any UFS2 partition where ACLs are enabled. I'm > wondering if it's actually UFS2, or if dumpfs is lying to you. Could you libufs stores the UFS version in disk.d_ufs based on the magic in the sblock it finds, and then dumpfs simply does something like.... printf("UFS%d", disk.d_ufs); More or less... So if it's lying, there's something much more fundamentally wrong :) -- Juli Mallett OpenDarwin, Mono, FreeBSD Developer. ircd-hybrid Developer, EFnet addict. FreeBSD on MIPS-Anything on FreeBSD. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message