Re: VFAT rename

Raul Miller (rdm@test.legislate.com)
Mon, 17 May 1999 13:02:05 -0400


Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> wrote:
> Sorry, I didn't realize what you were asking for. Comments re POSIX are
> correct, but in that case everything is much worse. What kind of
> semantics do you want here? Two dentries for the object at the same
> moment? Sorry, no.

Why should this be required?

How about:

mark directory busy
unhash dentry
change dentry
rehash dentry
update directory info
unmark directory as busy

?

The worse that I can see happening here is that someone is reading
from the dentry while this happens, and gets some third (but logically
equivalent) version of the name.

But maybe there's some access path I've not considered?

-- 
Raul

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/