On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 08:59:48AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > mv /export/home/us/oldfile /export/home/us/newfile > > but rename(2) never update cache path. v_path = /export/home/us/oldfile. > > help me...,how about update caceh path? > > Why do you need that ? > > v_path is _NOT_ the cached path used for name lookups via system call. > It's the pathname the vnode had when it was first initialized. Doing a > rename() syscall does not preserve that. > > There's a request for enhancement pending that asks to have rename() > update v_path. Question is - what's gained by that, compared to what it > will cost to do that ?
Like I stated in the bug[1]: > knowing the old path can actually be more important This might be true, but only when: 1) a process which originally opened the file under this old name is still running 2) the process is examined using a method that uses ->v_path directly without verification. Thus, in terms of observability, I believe the tradeoff of an update is worth it: 1) pfiles(1) will give at least /some/ path to the vnode instead of nothing 2) all processes which open the file under the new name will give correct info Given that from the point of rename(2) onwards, no new processes can open the file under the old name, it seems much more likely that users will want the new name rather than the old (and in a pfiles(1) context, a name rather than no name). regards john [1] 6410381 UFS rename should update ->v_path _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
