I gave you the answer several times but I'll humor you and do it one more time.
You can't trust one million lines of code between your application and the physical hardware to all be perfect and guarantee you anything more than "best effort". That includes your hyperbole. Now you draw your conclusion and I'll do the same. 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.... > > >> 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.
