From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Mar 1 19: 4:53 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from dayspring.firedrake.org (dayspring.firedrake.org [195.82.105.251]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F00B37B71A; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:04:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from float@firedrake.org) Received: from float by dayspring.firedrake.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14Yfs7-0004ME-00; Fri, 02 Mar 2001 03:04:47 +0000 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 03:04:47 +0000 To: Mike Smith Cc: Peter Seebach , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? Message-ID: <20010302030447.A10757@firedrake.org> References: <200102262201.f1QM1S620699@guild.plethora.net> <200102262210.f1QMAlS01993@mass.dis.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200102262210.f1QMAlS01993@mass.dis.org>; from msmith@freebsd.org on Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:10:47PM -0800 From: void Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:10:47PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: > > > > Well, imagine a hypothetical broken system in which two simultaneous calls > > to mkdir, on some hypothetical broken filesystem, can each think that it > > "succeeded". After all, at the end of the operation, the directory has > > been created, so who's to say they're wrong? ;) > > Is this somehow related to memory overcommit? It's actually an interaction between that, the fxp driver, and non-reflexive stackable VFS layers. HTH, HAND. -- Ben "I told Paddy no, I told Steve no, I told Paul no, and Ben fell asleep." --Kate C. (no, different Ben, I would have stayed up) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message