In message <http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=126356588306613&w=1>,
Marco Peereboom <slash () peereboom ! us> wrote
> You can do everything right all day long in software but hardware does
> what it does and claiming that a piece of software is crash proof is
> naive at best.
Hmm. Our rename(2) man page currently says:
rename() guarantees that if _to_ already exists, an instance of _to_
will always exist, even if the system should crash in the middle of
the operation.
Should this perhaps be changed to read something like this?
rename() tries to guarantee that if _to_ already exists, an instance
of _to_ will always exist, even if the system should crash in the
middle of the operation. However, in some cases the hardware may
not provide the proper support, causing the guarantee to fail.
Or do we (as a general policy) take this sort of escape clause taken to
be implied to knowledgable readers, and thus need not be explicitly stated?
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]"
<jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
"Most investment bankers' [...] idea of a long-term investment
is thirty-six hours" -- Robert Townsend, "Up the Organization"
