On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 04:35:19PM -0800, John Nemeth wrote:
>
> It has to do with the fact that historically mkdir(2) was
> actually mkdir(3), it wasn't an atomic syscall and was a sequence
> of operation performed by a library routine...
Actually I think you'll find that mkdir way always a system call.
It was directory rename that was done with a series of link and
unlink system calls.
Also, if you look at any current fs code the processing of "." and
".." is special - they will be treated as requests for the current
and parent directories regardless of the inodes they reference.
Doing otherwise is a complete locking nightmare!
David
--
David Laight: [email protected]
