Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] cross rename

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Yes... Al  and I had a brief conversation about the complexities over IRC this evening.

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> 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.