Subject: Re: union fs changes
To: None <tech-kern@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Ty Sarna <email@example.com>
Date: 12/30/1994 21:39:13
In article <9412302032.AA00302@leidecker.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
Kenneth Stailey <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
email@example.com electric obstacle." -- Warning from a manual