On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> How hard would it be to also add RENAME_NOREPLACE that fails if the
> destination already exists?
Trivial. And I agree that that should be a good flag to have.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On 10/01/2013 09:00 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> This series adds a new syscall, renameat2(), which is the same as renameat()
> but
> with a flags argument. Internally i_op->reaname2() is also added, which can
> later be merged with ->rename() but is kept separately for now, since this
> would
>
On 10/01/2013 09:00 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
This series adds a new syscall, renameat2(), which is the same as renameat()
but
with a flags argument. Internally i_op-reaname2() is also added, which can
later be merged with -rename() but is kept separately for now, since this
would
just
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
How hard would it be to also add RENAME_NOREPLACE that fails if the
destination already exists?
Trivial. And I agree that that should be a good flag to have.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
Yes... Al and I had a brief conversation about the complexities over IRC this
evening.
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> I would suggest it shouldn't be renameat2() but rather renameat3(),
>i.e.
>> rename file A -> B, if B exists rename B to C.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> I would suggest it shouldn't be renameat2() but rather renameat3(), i.e.
> rename file A -> B, if B exists rename B to C. It may not be desirable
> to expose the stale B in the same namespace as A, but still want it to
> be possible to
On 10/01/2013 09:00 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> This series adds a new syscall, renameat2(), which is the same as renameat()
> but
> with a flags argument. Internally i_op->reaname2() is also added, which can
> later be merged with ->rename() but is kept separately for now, since this
> would
>
On 10/01/2013 09:00 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
This series adds a new syscall, renameat2(), which is the same as renameat()
but
with a flags argument. Internally i_op-reaname2() is also added, which can
later be merged with -rename() but is kept separately for now, since this
would
just
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
I would suggest it shouldn't be renameat2() but rather renameat3(), i.e.
rename file A - B, if B exists rename B to C. It may not be desirable
to expose the stale B in the same namespace as A, but still want it to
be
Yes... Al and I had a brief conversation about the complexities over IRC this
evening.
Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
I would suggest it shouldn't be renameat2() but rather renameat3(),
i.e.
rename file
This series adds a new syscall, renameat2(), which is the same as renameat() but
with a flags argument. Internally i_op->reaname2() is also added, which can
later be merged with ->rename() but is kept separately for now, since this would
just blow up this patch without helping review.
The
This series adds a new syscall, renameat2(), which is the same as renameat() but
with a flags argument. Internally i_op-reaname2() is also added, which can
later be merged with -rename() but is kept separately for now, since this would
just blow up this patch without helping review.
The purpose
12 matches
Mail list logo
