From: | "Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:46:09 +0200 |
They also can't be refering to hardlinks, or the standard would say
hardlinks.The standard *never* says hardlinks either. It is always talking about directory entries or links.
"Resolving to the same existing file" leaves the pure namespace, becauseThey have to be refering to the paths resolving to the same identical namespace, in which case we are right, linux is right, and FreeBSD is wrong.
the standard differenciates between files (UFS: inode) and directory
entries.
As soon as the "new" operand already exists it is not a pure namespaceIt's simple and straightfoward, not ultra complex. It is not rename's responsibility to validate or resolve symlinks, or to treat hardlinks as a special case. rename is entirely a namespace operation. The only requirements are that it disallow impossible combinations, such as trying to rename a file over a directory, or rename a directory into a sub-directory of itself.
operation anymore. What happens if two NFS clients have the directory
cached, the first issues "mv a b", the second "mv b a"? Are both clients
issuing remove operations with the new code?
cheers simon
-- Serve - BSD +++ RENT this banner advert +++ ASCII Ribbon /"\ Work - Mac +++ space for low $$$ NOW!1 +++ Campaign \ / Party Enjoy Relax | http://dragonflybsd.org Against HTML \ Dude 2c 2 the max ! http://golden-apple.biz Mail + News / \
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part