Win: Fix std::fs::rename failing on Windows Server by attempting the non-atomic rename first

[Fulgen301]

We previously attempted the atomic rename first, and fell back to trying a non-atomic rename if it wasn't supported. However, this does not work reliably on Windows Server - NTFS partitions created in Windows Server 2016 apparently need to be upgraded, and it outright fails with ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED on ReFS on Windows Server 2022.

This commit switches the two calls so that FileRenameInfo is tried first, and an atomic rename via FileRenameInfoEx is only attempted if the non-atomic rename fails.

Fix #137499.
Fix #137971.

This PR works similarly to #137528, but is a cleaner fix in my opinion and avoids additional syscalls to reopen the file if MoveFileEx fails.

[rustbot]

r? @ChrisDenton

rustbot has assigned @ChrisDenton.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #138208) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[ChrisDenton]

Ok, I've been testing this on many Windows versions and on different filesystem. I think the better approach is to test for the following error codes:

• ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER
• ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED
• ERROR_INVALID_FUNCTION

ERROR_INVALID_FUNCTION seems unique to 1607. Windows versions before that consistently return ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER. After that it can be ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED or ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER depending on the OS version and filesystem.

[the8472]

This commit switches the two calls so that FileRenameInfo is tried first, and an atomic rename via FileRenameInfoEx is only attempted if the non-atomic rename fails.

What are the non-atomic semantics on windows? Unix software generally expects renames to be atomic.

[jieyouxu]

@rustbot author

[rustbot]

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.