> > > >Are there filesystem type cases where this might not be the case > > > >(NFS being my main concern ....) > > > > > > No. > > > > Yes. NFS doesn't guarantee atomicity, because it can't. If the > mkdir > > call returns, you have no guarantee that the remote directory has > been > > created (caching, errors, etc...) > > 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'? Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? Marc W
- Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? Drew Eckhardt
- Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? Nate Williams
- Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? Mike Smith
- Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? Peter Seebach
- Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?... Mike Smith
- Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?... Lyndon Nerenberg
- Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? Marc W
- Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? Nate Williams
- Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? Marc W
- Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? Nate Williams
- Re: Is mkdir guaranteed to be 'atomic' ?? Matt Dillon