On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 06:09:15PM -0800, Alan M Wright wrote: > Nicolas Williams wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 03:09:22PM -0800, Alan M Wright wrote: > >>Nicolas Williams wrote: > >>>Should a CR be filed against mv(1) here? Or an RFE for an option to it > >>>that obviates the identical file check, at least on case-insensitive > >>>file systems? > >>Fromm an mv perspective this is indistinguishable from > >>having multiple links to a file. > > > >nit: not if the link count is 1 :) > > So ... it would be unfortunate if the thing you wanted > to rename was a directory.
I'm not sure I follow. rename(2) can rename files and directories; so can mv(1) (which uses rename(2)). Directories cannot be hardlinked the way files can be. The point is that mv(1) has a check that assumes case sensitivity. Dropping that check would change its semantics in a case-sensitive filesystem -- it would let you rename a file even when a hardlink exists with the new name, in which case the hardlink would be unlinked during the rename. So it can't just be dropped; mv needs to become smarter (i.e., more complicated) or users have to deal. The fact that a work-around exists is nice -- this is a P4 or a P5. _______________________________________________ storage-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-discuss
