From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 3 11:16:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from bingnet2.cc.binghamton.edu (bingnet2.cc.binghamton.edu [128.226.1.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3D2C37B401; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:16:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from onyx (onyx.cs.binghamton.edu [128.226.140.171]) by bingnet2.cc.binghamton.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f93IGFk24841; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:16:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:15:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Zhihui Zhang X-Sender: zzhang@onyx To: Ken Pizzini Cc: Matt Dillon , Peter Wemm , Ian Dowse , Yevgeniy Aleynikov , ache@FreeBSD.ORG, mckusick@mckusick.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: patch #3 (was Re: bleh. Re: ufs_rename panic) In-Reply-To: <20011003171114.12313.qmail@nink.inspinc.ad> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Ken Pizzini wrote: > Zhihui Zhang wrote: > > (3) Matt says "For example, if you have two hardlinked files residing in > > different directories both get renamed simultaniously, one of the > > rename()s can fail even though there is no conflict > > > > Can you explain this a little bit more? > > Consider: > mkdir foo bar > echo fubar > foo/a > ln foo/a bar/a Should it be: ln foo/a bar/b instead? > mv foo/a foo/b & mv bar/a bar/b > > There is no reason why that last line should fail, though it could > return EINVAL under some situations using some of the proposed > patches. > > --Ken Pizzini > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message