Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > FWIW, that might be not so simple ;-/ Reason: NFS-like stuff. Client > sees a negative in cache; the problem is how to decide whether to > tell the server "OK, I want normal link()" vs. "if it turns out that > someone has created it by the time you see the request, give do > a replacing link". Sure, if could treat ->link() telling you -EEXIST > as "OK, repeat it with ->link_replace(), then", but that's an extra > roundtrip... If someone asks for link_replace on a filesystem that doesn't support it or if it's a network filesystem in which the client does, but the server being accessed does not, then return an error (say EOPNOTSUPP) and let userspace (or cachefiles or whatever) handle the fallback? David
