[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwTz6-zwsCr9zbFGEn5B5nKBQtr_+_h0AKZnXWneBvyNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:20:42 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"mszeredi@...e.cz" <mszeredi@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] cross rename v4
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>
> Fair enough, that allows the thing to be listed, at least.
>
> What about creation? A new syscall?
>
> Removal? unlink(2)?
>
> Should stat(2) succeed with a new filetype?
I think it had better work exactly like a special node (eg character
device etc). I don't know about creation (yes, we might even fake it
with mknod(), or just say that the only way to create them is as part
of the union-fs), but removal and renaming should absolutely *not* be
a new system call. That would be a disaster for any system admin,
having to use special tools to edit the filesystem.
Obviously when it is part of a union mount, whiteouts work differently
- they must *not* show up in getdents, and you can't rename/remove a
whiteout anywhere else. But that is obviously part of the union-fs,
nor the low-level filesystem itself.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists