[TUHS] moving directories in svr2

[Clem Cole]

At the risk of kicking a dead horse too much ...

On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 12:14 PM <arnold at skeeve.com> wrote:

> Plan 9 eventually did something like this. I don't remember the details.
>
Arnold - point taken but ... unfortunately, I think that the comparison is
a little difficult because Plan9's concepts of namespaces is a tad
different than UNIX's.  But I'll let Rob or Ken comment as they lived and
developed both systems.

FWIW: An object store is something that retains information after the
processes that operates on it complete -* i.e. *its a *static entity*.
Links were (are) also a static concept.   Late binding to names (like
symlinks) are a dynamic (runtime idea).  Bakul points out that by using the
per process u area, the dynamic context can be retained.  The observation
is that .. (like symlinks) tend to be a runtime (dynamic) notion, although
I'm not sure how you keep consistency in the static FS if you don't store
the link in the inode.  As someone that did, I suggest - try writing fsck
if you are using dynamic content.   How do you know?  I'd still claim it is
the same issue.

Anyway, I suppose that like context sensitive symlinks (which I sorely
miss), you could do this and keep a list of the N inodes for the N parents
and then like CDSL's keep the one you used to get there in the u area so
that .. picks the proper one on the way out and you can still have the
static notion which something like fsck can check off line.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20211229/62d41af7/attachment.htm>