From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 26 13:56:54 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 6D53837B491 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:56:50 -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 NAA39209; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:56:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mwlist@lanfear.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:56:33 -0800 (PST) From: Marc W Message-Id: <200102262156.NAA39209@akira.lanfear.com> To: , Drew Eckhardt Cc: Marc W , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 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 > ----------------------------- > From: Nate Williams > > >Are there filesystem type cases where this might not be the case > > >(NFS being my main concern ....) > > > > No. > > Yes. NFS doesn't guarantee atomicity, because it can't. If the mkdir > call returns, you have no guarantee that the remote directory has been > created (caching, errors, etc...) I can handle it if there is a case where both fail, but is there a case where both can SUCCEED ?? marc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message