Subject: Re: union fs changes
To: None <tech-kern@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Ty Sarna <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 12/30/1994 21:39:13
In article <>,
Kenneth Stailey  <> wrote:
> >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.

That would make more sense to me. I would find the undelete/unwhiteout
disction more confusing, rather than less. To me they're logically the

However, if we're going to keep undelete() for both operations,
shouldn't rm's -W be renamed -D or -U (undo) or somesuch? 

Ty Sarna                 "Don't be wet or humidity, for the cause of        electric obstacle." -- Warning from a manual