> 
> >it seems to be that the name undelete is ok.  would you
> >have both a file available for undeletion, and a whiteout
> >in existence at the same time?
> 
> You could have successive undelete(2) calls.  First one zaps the
> whiteout, the second restores the file.

I'm not really knowledgable on this, but wouldn't the removal of
the whiteout imply the restoration of the file?  I was under the
impression that removing a file from the underlying readonly FS
was what causes the creation of the whiteout?  Wouldn't it follow
that the undelete call does the reverse?
If I'm way off, ignore me.. :-)

-Andrew