On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't think the standards would prevent us from adding "cross-fs rename" >> capabilities. It's beyond the standards as of now, and I'd expect that >> were it ever added to that it'd be an optional feature as well, to be >> queried for via e.g. pathconf(). > > Why do you beliece there is a need for a pathconf() call? > Either rename(2) succeeds or it fails with a cross-device error. Why do you have a NAME_MAX / SYMLINK_MAX query - you can just as well let such requests fail with ENAMETOOLONG. Why do you have a FILESIZEBITS query - there's EOVERFLOW to tell you. There's no _need_. But the convenience exists for others as well. FrankH. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
