From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 26 14: 2:17 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 0E42D37B4EC; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:02:13 -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 OAA39275; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:02:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mwlist@lanfear.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:02:09 -0800 (PST) From: Marc W Message-Id: <200102262202.OAA39275@akira.lanfear.com> To: , Marc W Cc: , Drew Eckhardt , 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 > > > > 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'? My understanding is that, on non-broken filesystems, calls to mkdir(2) either succeed by creating a new directory, or fail and return EEXIST (note: excluding all other types of errors :-)) However, NFS seems to have issues, so the question is: could both mkdir(2) calls actually succeed and claim to have created the same directory (even if it is?), or is one ALWAYS guaranteed to fail, as on a normal fs. marc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message