On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Omar Sandoval <osandov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This is actually the exact same check we have in vfs_rename():
Hmm. That looks bogus too exactly due to the overlayfs issues. Oh
well. I guess people don't actually use overlayfs and care.
> I tried to keep the same semantics as rename().
Ok, it does seem to match the non-exchange rename(), which I guess is
what we want. It does worry me a bit that we only check for
"may_delete()" even though we end up replacing it with a new one, but
apparently those semantics indeed aren't new.
Linus
