> I'm not familiar with the dcache mechanics, and I would guess that you
> are correct (that it can't be made to work) but to help us users
> understand the reasons,
>
> 1. What problems would happen when renaming "Foo" to "foO" that would
> not be open when renaming "Foo" to "baR"? On any rename, compliant
> programs should expect the file name to disappear indefinitely (and
> another name to appear) so it shouldn't matter if it is not available
> from the directory for a few cycles.
The problem being: we need to treat the target name differently from all
other contexts. Normally foO *is* Foo. In case of rename() target we
should consider Foo as name of non-existent file. And protect ourselves
from races with creat() and mkdir() that might see the negative dentry and
jump on it.
Please, wait till the next week - I got a large piece of sh^Htuff on my
head (real life ;-/) and I'm effectively off-line till Monday. I have code
doing the thing and I've mostly separated it from the dcache rewrite
(which is *not* stable enough). I will post it for testing on Monday or
Tuesday.
-
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/