From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <140e7ec30711292058i16b0d11bjc1d7646e336f2ee7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:58:59 +0900
From: sqweek <sqweek@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 wiping itself?
In-Reply-To: <474D93A2.278C7D77@null.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <140e7ec30711272343x6f017db3v90053f21cb161884@mail.gmail.com>
	<20071128143526.D3AE21E8C22@holo.morphisms.net>
	<474D93A2.278C7D77@null.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0f1d2500-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Nov 29, 2007 1:29 AM, Douglas A. Gwyn <DAGwyn@null.net> wrote:
> Instead of delete and later replace, how about create unique-named temp new file then immediately rename to target name?
> If rename is atomic then nothing could ever get lost.

 I suspect the submitted patch (ie, don't delete the file in the first
place) is similar enough.
 Thanks a lot Russ, for the fixes and explanation.
-sqweek