Subject: RENAME clarifications

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 12:21:40 -0600

Two clarifications/mods for RENAME...

1)

It has been pointed out that the RENAME operation does not
make a statement about the value of the current filehandle
after successful completion.  I have added such a statement
and think it is appropriate but the requirement to have
the current filehandle set to the new file system object
is an additional piece of work for the server.

--

DESCRIPTION

  The RENAME operation renames the object identified by oldname in
  the source directory corresponding to the saved filehandle, as set
  by the SAVEFH operation, to newname in the target directory
  corresponding to the current filehandle.  The operation is required
  to be atomic to the client.  Source and target directories must
  reside on the same file system on the server.  On success, the       |
  current filehandle corresponds to the newname object.                |

--

2)

In the Implementation section, there is a statement that NFS4ERR_MLINK
may be returned upon successful completion to signify the server's
use of a sequence of "unlink/link/unlink" for the op.
Unfortunately, the way the results struct is currently defined,
the server is unable to return the NFS4ERR_MLINK and return
the results struct simultaneously.  I also believe that this
error is of limited use.

Therefore, I plan to remove this error code and statement unless
someone can justify keeping it and adjusting the result struct.

Spencer

---

From: Mike Eisler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 10:36:13 -0800 (PST)

>   current filehandle corresponds to the newname object.                |

I don't see why the current file handle has to be perturbed. If a
client wants the file handle of the newname object, then it can piggyback
a LOOKUP onto the compound procedure.

Consider the client that does a block of renames from one
directory to another. If the saved and current file handles are
left unperturbed, then this can be done efficiently in one compound
procedure.

	-mre

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 12:37:36 -0600

> left unperturbed, then this can be done efficiently in one compound

Ahh.  Good idea.  I like it and therefore withdraw my previous
modification and suggest that the verbage now be:

"On success, the current filehandle will continue to be the
target directory."

Spencer