On 02/20/2013 04:42 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:

The most common usecase for rename(2) syscall is an atomic replacement
of existing file with newer version. But rename_f() rename some existing
filename to newly generated (non existing) filename. As result the most
important usecase is not covered.

Good catch.

Since rename_f() is already exist in fsstress and it has known behavior,
some tests already depends on that behaviour, let's add another operation
(replace_f) which invoke rename(2) for two existing entries.

OUT_OF_COMMIT_DISCUSSION:
Off course replace_f() break naming convention where fun_name == syscall_f(),
but this is the only way I see to introduce new feature and not break
other tests. May be it is reasonable to call it rename2_f() ?

I think this possible exposes a bug which was not exposed by before when 
running for example test 076 and test 083 on both ext4 and xfs.

Suggest this new function is called rename2_() so that we don't change 
the existing known tests.

Regards
--Rich

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs