From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030560AbWFOOyg (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:54:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030561AbWFOOyg (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:54:36 -0400 Received: from fep32-0.kolumbus.fi ([193.229.0.63]:60806 "EHLO fep32-app.kolumbus.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030560AbWFOOyf (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:54:35 -0400 From: Janne Karhunen To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NFSv3 client reordering RENAMEs Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:54:33 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 References: <200606151638.15792.Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> <4491644E.8000506@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4491644E.8000506@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200606151754.33384.Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 15 June 2006 16:44, Peter Staubach wrote: > >really expect RENAME to be reordered as mv is generally considered > >atomic. That, and RFC 1813 mandates RENAME to be atomic. Is this a > >known thing and do you guys consider this feature or a bug? > > Can you construct a testcase which exhibits this behavior? Possibly .. if someone first acks that this indeed would be considered as bug and not as a feature :/ -- // Janne