Yes... Al and I had a brief conversation about the complexities over IRC this evening. Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I would suggest it shouldn't be renameat2() but rather renameat3(), >i.e. >> rename file A -> B, if B exists rename B to C. It may not be >desirable >> to expose the stale B in the same namespace as A, but still want it >to >> be possible to scavenge it. Obviously, A=C is a valid subcase. > >I really *really* prefer to stay with two names. Miklos had an earlier >three-name version, and it was hugely more complex, and it does not >fit nearly as well in the model. > >Two directory entries is also what the current rename() effectively >always does (clearing one, changing another). So doing the >cross-rename model is actually fairly close to a normal rename. A >three-way one is not actually at all similar. > >So I was actually very relieved to see this much simpler and cleaner >model, because the alternative really was nasty. This one looks fairly >simple and clean and straightforward. The previous was none of that. > > Linus -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
