Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:34:06 -0200 (BRDT) From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> To: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@monzoon.net> Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Charles Randall <crandall@matchlogic.com>, Dan Phoenix <dphoenix@bravenet.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Jos Backus <josb@cncdsl.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102061831530.1535-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva> In-Reply-To: <3A805E94.8FF4F103@monzoon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Andre Oppermann wrote: > 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? Could you explain to me _why_ you think this is the case ? AFAIK the atomicity means that link() creates the new directory entry and increases the inode usage count atomically, so the programs running on the system never get to see an inconsistent state (and to prevent against an unlink() running while the link() is "in progress"). regards, Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.21.0102061831530.1535-100000>