Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:15:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Zhihui Zhang <zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu> To: Ken Pizzini <kenp@infospace.com> Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie>, Yevgeniy Aleynikov <eugenea@infospace.com>, ache@FreeBSD.ORG, mckusick@mckusick.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: patch #3 (was Re: bleh. Re: ufs_rename panic) Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0110031415130.13787-100000@onyx> In-Reply-To: <20011003171114.12313.qmail@nink.inspinc.ad>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Ken Pizzini wrote: > Zhihui Zhang <zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.4.21.0110031415130.13787-100000>