In article <9412302032.AA00302@leidecker.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
Kenneth Stailey  <kstailey@leidecker.gsfc.nasa.gov> 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
same.

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
tsarna@endicor.com        electric obstacle." -- Warning from a manual