From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun 20 13:40:41 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 E715137B401
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>;
	Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49AEB43F85
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>;
	Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5KKeSM7060691;
	Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200306202040.h5KKeSM7060691@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: uitm@blackflag.ru
In-Reply-To: <200306201857.WAA00837@slt.oz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: freebsd-hackers@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
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 20:40:42 -0000

On 20 Jun, Andrey Alekseyev wrote:
>> 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.

Well just its contents ... but this still violates POLA.