Subject: Re: union fs changes
To: Kenneth Stailey <email@example.com>
From: Andrew Gillham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/30/1994 16:58:36
> >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.. :-)