On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom <sl...@peereboom.us> wrote: > > You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all over > > again. Take your toy mail implementation and enjoy your hair. > > You are still refusing to give a direct answer to a direct question. > How's that not ignorant? I wonder why that might be... All this "well, > we can't really tell what the hardware may do" crap isn't enough. > Perhaps you don't have an answer....
Y'know, if you don't get the fact that the answer you're being given is that, ultimately, there really *isn't* an answer, you need some more zen in your diet. > > >> Now SATA controller - no cache, SATA disk - write-back cache disabled. > >> FFS mounted 'sync' on it. In most cases, can rename() provide the > >> quarantee as its man page? By most cases I mean typical usage > >> day-to-day usage without single-bit or other errors, or hardware going > >> flaky. I do know errors happen, ok? > > > rename() causes the link named from to be renamed as to. If to exists, > > it is first removed. Both from and to must be of the same type (that > is, > > both directories or both non-directories), and must reside on the same > > file system. > > > > rename() guarantees that if to already exists, an instance of to will > al- > > ways exist, even if the system should crash in the middle of the > opera- > > tion.
