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.

Reply via email to