From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 6 12:30:42 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch [62.48.0.70]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F34C037B491 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:30:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 13729 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 20:27:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monzoon.net) ([195.134.133.140]) (envelope-sender ) by mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Feb 2001 20:27:13 -0000 Message-ID: <3A805E94.8FF4F103@monzoon.net> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 21:29:08 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rik van Riel Cc: Matt Dillon , Mike Silbersack , Poul-Henning Kamp , Charles Randall , Dan Phoenix , Alfred Perlstein , Jos Backus , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > But please answer me one question: Is the link() call atomically > > in FFS/UFS w or w/o softupdates? Meaning when the call returns > > the meta- data is written to stable storage like with fsync()? > > Since when does `atomic' equal `synchronous' ? Because otherwise it would not be atomically, would it? -- Andre To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message