On 2018-08-14 14:30:57 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> I think if the link() returns 0, it's safe for the code to assume all
> went well.
The Linux link(2) man page says:
BUGS
On NFS filesystems, the return code may be wrong in case the NFS server
performs the link creation and dies b
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:30:03AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> But as I understand it, this means that the link got created, but the
> system thinks that it wasn't, and link() returns a non-zero value.
>
> So, I also think that if link() returns 0, then all went well.
That was my reading too.
On 21Aug2018 07:07, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:30:03AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
But as I understand it, this means that the link got created, but the
system thinks that it wasn't, and link() returns a non-zero value.
So, I also think that if link() returns 0, then
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 07:13:21AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 21Aug2018 07:07, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:30:03AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > But as I understand it, this means that the link got created, but the
> > > system thinks that it wasn't, and l
On 2018-08-21 07:07:15 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> I don't like removing 20-year old safety checks, but I think it's okay
> to do so for the case where link() returns 0.
I was also hesitant, but after thinking more about it:
* That's an unusual "safety check" (I doubt other software does
