From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 26 14: 0: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (user-uinjtfm.biz.mindspring.com [165.121.245.246]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A74FF37B401 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:00:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1QLxES01872; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:59:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200102262159.f1QLxES01872@mass.dis.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Drew Eckhardt Cc: Marc W , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:47:50 MST." <200102262147.f1QLlon10675@chopper.Poohsticks.ORG> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:59:14 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > In message <200102262058.MAA39009@akira.lanfear.com>, mwlist@lanfear.com writes > : > > is mkdir(3) guaranteed to be atomic? > > Yes. Um. mkdir(2) is atomic. Note that mkdir(1) with the -p argument is *not* atomic. > >Are there filesystem type cases where this might not be the case > >(NFS being my main concern ....) > > No. How would it *not* be atomic? -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message