![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> This is 'nice' for the server, it doesn't have the overhead of maintaining > a file-system state. That's why servers are supposed to be read-only. > However, somebody has got to write the stuff to the file-system that's > going to (eventually) be read-only. Beware when such access occurs. But NFS still allows atomic rename() right? Isn't it considered essential to write the new executable or library under a different name, and then atomically rename() over the old one? If you write() directly into the executable, you will get what you deserve... Regards, Dan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:13 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||