From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030749AbWFOQFd (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:05:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030760AbWFOQFc (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:05:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:26597 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030749AbWFOQFb (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:05:31 -0400 Message-ID: <44918545.2090002@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:05:25 -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> <4491644E.8000506@redhat.com> <200606151754.33384.Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200606151754.33384.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: >On Thursday 15 June 2006 16:44, Peter Staubach wrote: > > > >>>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? >> >> > >Possibly .. if someone first acks that this indeed would be >considered as bug and not as a feature :/ > Yes, I believe that this would be considered to be a bug... ps