From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Feb 26 13:58: 0 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C567437B401
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:57:57 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from nate@yogotech.com)
Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131])
	by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04689;
	Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:57:54 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com)
Received: (from nate@localhost)
	by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA27201;
	Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:57:53 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from nate)
From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15002.53601.427628.963431@nomad.yogotech.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:57:53 -0700 (MST)
To: Marc W <mwlist@lanfear.com>
Cc: <nate@yogotech.com>, Drew Eckhardt <drew@PoohSticks.ORG>,
	freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? 
In-Reply-To: <200102262156.NAA39209@akira.lanfear.com>
References: <200102262156.NAA39209@akira.lanfear.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid
Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams)
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> > > >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 ?? 

What do you mean 'both succeed'?


Nate

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message