From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] mv vs cp In-Reply-To: Message from Alexander Viro of "Mon, 08 Oct 2001 00:49:30 -0400." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <13447.1002521429@apnic.net> From: George Michaelson Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:10:29 +1000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 004d8582-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > So can anybody who had seen current 4.4BSD derivatives. _None_ of them > got it right. rename()/rename() race (creating a loop and detaching it > from the rest of tree) is still there. > So can you say how often in practice that race condition is exercised? > > I should imagine that BSD "rename" must have been made orders of > > magnitude more complex by symbolic links. After all, SysV 3.2 "mv" > > could rename directories into other directories in the same > > filesystem, couldn't it? It's been a long time since my 3B2 was > > Same race + metric buttload of other fun stuff. turning a strict tree into a mesh/DAG is always fun. But, its also possibly useful for some people. Me? I liked the newcastle connection but we don't have /.../ so I guess I lost. Namespaces might be in the same spirit. I understand its a deeply held religion, but what IS it with runtime/use-time reference by name which people find so offensive in the filesystem apart from implementation complexity? We have call by name/value/reference in code, why not in namespaces? -George -- George Michaelson | APNIC Email: ggm@apnic.net | PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064 Phone: +61 7 3367 0490 | Australia Fax: +61 7 3367 0482 | http://www.apnic.net