> > But it's has various dawbacks, like rmdir doesn't work if there are
> > open files within an otherwise empty directory.
> >
> > I'd happily accept suggestions on how to deal with this differenty.
>
> NFS has that problem because it really has to sillyrename into the same
> directory. I don't
> But it's has various dawbacks, like rmdir doesn't work if there are
> open files within an otherwise empty directory.
>
> I'd happily accept suggestions on how to deal with this differenty.
NFS has that problem because it really has to sillyrename into the same
directory. I don't see that
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:18:10PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > Or not support such a broken protocol at all.
> >
> > Wonder what people would say if we removed support for NFSv[23].
> >
> > Just because a protocol does not support "perfect" UNIX semantics, it
> > doesn't mean it's
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:18:10PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > Or not support such a broken protocol at all.
>
> Wonder what people would say if we removed support for NFSv[23].
>
> Just because a protocol does not support "perfect" UNIX semantics, it
> doesn't mean it's broken. By that
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:06:06PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > A file isn't deleted while there are still links or open files
> > refering to it. So getting the attributes for a file with nlink==0 is
> > perfectly valid while the file is still open.
>
> Is it? Why not just pretend that
> > If a network filesystem protocol can't handle operations (be it data
> > or metadata) on an unlinked file, we must do sillirenaming, so that
> > the file is not actually unlinked.
>
> Or not support such a broken protocol at all.
Wonder what people would say if we removed support for
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:06:06PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> A file isn't deleted while there are still links or open files
> refering to it. So getting the attributes for a file with nlink==0 is
> perfectly valid while the file is still open.
Is it? Why not just pretend that the
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:06:06PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> If a network filesystem protocol can't handle operations (be it data
> or metadata) on an unlinked file, we must do sillirenaming, so that
> the file is not actually unlinked.
Or not support such a broken protocol at all.
-
To
> > > and if that means adding silly rename support so be it.
> >
> > That's what is done currently.
> >
> > But it's has various dawbacks, like rmdir doesn't work if there are
> > open files within an otherwise empty directory.
> >
> > I'd happily accept suggestions on how to deal with this
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > and if that means adding silly rename support so be it.
>
> That's what is done currently.
>
> But it's has various dawbacks, like rmdir doesn't work if there are
> open files within an otherwise empty directory.
>
> I'd
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 02:24:54PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > Thanks to everyone for the feedback. Here's two of the VFS patches
> > reworked according to comments. I also plan to rework the setattr()
> > patch accordingly and perhaps the xattr patch, altough that is the
> > lowest
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 02:24:54PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Thanks to everyone for the feedback. Here's two of the VFS patches
> reworked according to comments. I also plan to rework the setattr()
> patch accordingly and perhaps the xattr patch, altough that is the
> lowest priority.
>
>
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 02:24:54PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
Thanks to everyone for the feedback. Here's two of the VFS patches
reworked according to comments. I also plan to rework the setattr()
patch accordingly and perhaps the xattr patch, altough that is the
lowest priority.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 02:24:54PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
Thanks to everyone for the feedback. Here's two of the VFS patches
reworked according to comments. I also plan to rework the setattr()
patch accordingly and perhaps the xattr patch, altough that is the
lowest priority.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
and if that means adding silly rename support so be it.
That's what is done currently.
But it's has various dawbacks, like rmdir doesn't work if there are
open files within an otherwise empty directory.
I'd happily accept
and if that means adding silly rename support so be it.
That's what is done currently.
But it's has various dawbacks, like rmdir doesn't work if there are
open files within an otherwise empty directory.
I'd happily accept suggestions on how to deal with this differenty.
Only
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:06:06PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
If a network filesystem protocol can't handle operations (be it data
or metadata) on an unlinked file, we must do sillirenaming, so that
the file is not actually unlinked.
Or not support such a broken protocol at all.
-
To
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:06:06PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
A file isn't deleted while there are still links or open files
refering to it. So getting the attributes for a file with nlink==0 is
perfectly valid while the file is still open.
Is it? Why not just pretend that the attributes
If a network filesystem protocol can't handle operations (be it data
or metadata) on an unlinked file, we must do sillirenaming, so that
the file is not actually unlinked.
Or not support such a broken protocol at all.
Wonder what people would say if we removed support for NFSv[23].
Just
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:06:06PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
A file isn't deleted while there are still links or open files
refering to it. So getting the attributes for a file with nlink==0 is
perfectly valid while the file is still open.
Is it? Why not just pretend that the
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:18:10PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
Or not support such a broken protocol at all.
Wonder what people would say if we removed support for NFSv[23].
Just because a protocol does not support perfect UNIX semantics, it
doesn't mean it's broken. By that standard
But it's has various dawbacks, like rmdir doesn't work if there are
open files within an otherwise empty directory.
I'd happily accept suggestions on how to deal with this differenty.
NFS has that problem because it really has to sillyrename into the same
directory. I don't see that ssh/sftp
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:18:10PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
Or not support such a broken protocol at all.
Wonder what people would say if we removed support for NFSv[23].
Just because a protocol does not support perfect UNIX semantics, it
doesn't mean it's broken. By that
But it's has various dawbacks, like rmdir doesn't work if there are
open files within an otherwise empty directory.
I'd happily accept suggestions on how to deal with this differenty.
NFS has that problem because it really has to sillyrename into the same
directory. I don't see that
24 matches
Mail list logo
