Hi, Ok, thanks for clarifying. With this model, are the intended semantics of unlink/rm that the "operation succeeds, but the object is still there and will be seen by the next ordinary lookup/stat/readdir?"
(I should say, I did hear Troy's suggestion of a wholly different sort of use case involving mutating the backup volume, I'm staying entirely out of that...) Matt ----- "Andrew Deason" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, of course. If someone holds open a file on some system and you > try > to delete it, the file will stay around forever as long as that > reference is kept on that client; that's the idea :) > > If you just mean there's no way for a client to say "really delete > this > file, I don't care if someone else is using it", then yeah, there's > no > way to do that without updating the protocol. That's what I was > trying > to say with the concerns about space usage and confidentiality or > whatever. I don't know how critical it is for various people, but it > is a > problem, sure; as far as I'm aware, it is the only problem with such > an > approach. -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
