From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 20 11:55:32 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FE637B401; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frontend3.aha.ru (elk.zenon.net [213.189.198.216]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53DBB43F75; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:55:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from uitm@blackflag.ru) Received: from [195.2.90.70] (HELO slt.oz) by frontend3.aha.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6) with ESMTP id 8359727; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:55:28 +0400 Received: (from uitm@localhost) by slt.oz (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA00837; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:57:09 +0400 (MSD) From: Andrey Alekseyev Message-Id: <200306201857.WAA00837@slt.oz> In-Reply-To: From uitm at "Jun 20, 3 10:35:08 pm" To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:57:07 +0400 (MSD) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: truckman@freebsd.org Subject: Re: open() and ESTALE error X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:55:32 -0000 > Eh, but the generation number for file1 should have been changed! This will I'm sorry, the generation number is not changed in your scenario. Thus, I believe if the sequence of actions on the server is mv file1 tmpfile mv file2 file1 mv tmpfile file1 like you described, it's safe to continue to use a cached file handle for file1 on the server since it still references the original file. And file2 just disappears from the server.