Hi, I'm wondering about the validity of an interpretation of intro(5) and stat(5) that could allow a server to atomically change the directory of a file.
>From intro(5) <http://man.cat-v.org/9front/5/intro> The notation string[s] (using a literal s character) is shorthand for s[2] followed by s bytes of UTF-8 text. (Systems may choose to reduce the set of legal characters to reduce syntactic problems, for example to remove slashes from name compo- nents, *but the protocol has no such restriction*. Plan 9 names may contain any printable character (that is, any character outside hexadecimal 00-1F and 80-9F) except slash.). wstat(5) <http://man.cat-v.org/9front/5/stat> on the other hand does not say much about the name field of Fcall: The name can be changed by anyone with write permission in the parent directory; it is an error to change the name to that of an existing file. Now, since the protocol does not restrict names (even if Plan 9 does it), I'm wondering if setting the name to a full path starting from root could be used to change atomically the directory of a file (given the write permission on both original and target directory). Obviously I'm not referring to Plan 9 file servers (I guess this would be a non retrocompatbile change), but I'm considering if such interpretation would be wrong (according to the official specifications). A server supporting such behaviour could be considered a 9p2000 conformant server? Giacomo
