From: Valient G. <vg...@po...> - 2004-06-23 21:00:45
|
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 20:04, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > True. I'd do it this way: have a flag for each node that indicates > whether it is hidden (i.e. deleted) or not. In the release operation > if the node is hidden and the open_count is zero, than call the > unlink() method. I've implemented this, which works fine (as long as the filesystem also implements unlink, but that would be normal). How do you feel about having both? I've made it so that if hidefile (or perhaps you prefer another name -- rename_internal , rename_reference ?) is not set, then use rename + unlink on close. Unless you won't consider this for inclusion, I'll submit it. The reason is that in my own filesystem I'd prefer to handle the internal-rename without treating it as a real rename because with a rename I have to potentially do a bunch of extra work (one of the encryption options allows data to be dependent on the filename, so renaming a file on disk means having to rewrite part of the file).. Valient |