On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:35 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:09 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So you'd have three stages:
1) ".." always returns -EXDEV
2) ".." returns -EXDEV if there was a concurrent rename/mount
3) ".." returns -EXDEV if there was a concurrent rename/mount and we
reset the sequence numbers and check if you escaped.
In fact, I wonder if this should return -EAGAIN instead - to say that
"retrying may work".
And here "this" was meant to be "case 2" - I was moving the quoted
text around and didn't fix my wording, so now it is ambiguous or
implies #3, which would be crazy.
Sorry for the confusion,
Linus
