On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 08:37:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:te g... In the current code, both vfsmounts are always identical, and so one of the two should go, agreed. The thought behind passing both vfsmounts was that they could differ but point to the same super_block, in which case renames would still be possible at least from a filesystem point of view. The essential restriction here is that both files must be on the same device; the vfs restriction of not allowing cross-mount renames is arbitrary. Cross-mount renames are not allowed currently, and granted, they may not be very useful, either. As always, it's a pleasure to see the genuine Viro charm at play.
| Alan Cox | [PATCH 01/76] drivers/serial/crisv10.c: add missing put_tty_driver |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Adrian Bunk | Re: Linux 2.6.21 |
| David Miller | Slow DOWN, please!!! |
git: | |
| Jon Smirl | Re: VCS comparison table |
| Junio C Hamano | [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins |
| Eric Wong | [PATCH] archimport improvements |
| Johannes Schindelin | Re: [FAQ?] Rationale for git's way to manage the index |
| Richard Stallman | Real men don't attack straw men |
| GVG GVG | ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host |
| Leon Dippenaar | New tcp stack attack |
| Henning Brauer | Re: About Xen: maybe a reiterative question but .. |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Mark Lord | Re: 2.6.25-rc8: FTP transfer errors |
| Alexey Dobriyan | [PATCH 01/33] nf_conntrack_sip: de-static helper pointers |
| Evgeniy Polyakov | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
