From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 26 12:58:42 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from akira.lanfear.com (akira.lanfear.com [208.12.11.174]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37AC37B401 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:58:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mwlist@lanfear.com) Received: from sapporo.lanfear.com (h-64-105-36-216.snvacaid.covad.net [64.105.36.216]) by akira.lanfear.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA39009 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:58:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mwlist@lanfear.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:58:36 -0800 (PST) From: Marc W Message-Id: <200102262058.MAA39009@akira.lanfear.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Mailer: Kiltdown 0.7 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG hi! i can never really tell if this alias is for discussions concerning development OF the FreeBSD OS or development ON the FreeBSD OS (or both), but I figure i'll risk the wrath of the anti-social and ask a coupla programming questions :-) is mkdir(3) guaranteed to be atomic? Thus, if I have two processes with a possible race condition, is mkdir(3) guaranteed to only work on one of them and return EEXIST on the other??? Are there filesystem type cases where this might not be the case (NFS being my main concern ....) thanks! marc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message