From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030440AbWFONos (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:44:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030443AbWFONos (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:44:48 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:21712 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030440AbWFONor (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:44:47 -0400 Message-ID: <4491644E.8000506@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:44:46 -0400 From: Peter Staubach User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8-1.4.1 (X11/20060420) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Janne Karhunen CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NFSv3 client reordering RENAMEs References: <200606151638.15792.Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200606151638.15792.Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Janne Karhunen wrote: >G'd day, > >Looks like that given async NFS mount Linux NFS client can reorder >RENAMEs as well. For me this caused several eaten files :/. Didn't >really expect RENAME to be reordered as mv is generally considered >atomic. That, and RFC 1813 mandates RENAME to be atomic. Is this a >known thing and do you guys consider this feature or a bug? > Can you construct a testcase which exhibits this behavior? Thanx... ps