Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:34:27 +0100 From: mouss <usebsd@free.fr> To: Greg Black <gjb@gbch.net>, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Cc: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@monzoon.net>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, 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: <4.3.0.20010207142937.045be410@pop.free.fr> In-Reply-To: <nospam-3a813095860ab65@maxim.gbch.net> References: <20010207110208.G74296@hand.dotat.at> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102061555550.1535-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva> <3A805035.C71AAD5E@monzoon.net> <200102061943.f16Jhp365113@earth.backplane.com> <3A805938.96ED890D@monzoon.net> <20010207110208.G74296@hand.dotat.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 21:25 07/02/01 +1000, Greg Black wrote: >Tony Finch wrote: > > > Why not just use rename(2)? To protect against the new filename > > already existing? > >Why not just read the man page for rename(2) before making >suggestions? I find nothing convincing in the manpage. Could you please tell what I am missing. - both rename and link require the files to be on the fs - both rename and the link/unlink guarantee the existence of the file whatever happens so what's the motivation except old heritage of possibly broken rename()? or is it just because qmail developper have seen that in the fwtk code? regards, mouss 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?4.3.0.20010207142937.045be410>