On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 12:03:46PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 20:11:51 -0600, MJ (Michal) wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 05:05:06PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > > > On 10/06/2011 05:01 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > >>> you would not notice any troubles. > > > >> > > > >> Umm, yes you would. That's not atomic, and risks leaving things in an > > > >> inconsistent state. > > > >> > > > >> http://www.flamingspork.com/talks/2007/06/eat_my_data.odp > > > >> http://www.pixelbeat.org/docs/unix_file_replacement.html > > > > > > > > cp -f ${grub_cfg}.new ${grub_cfg} ; rm -f ${grub_cfg}.new > > > > > > > > Better? > > > > > > No. cp is not atomic. > > > > I think that in this particular case you are overdoing that concern. > > These are small files and real writes are in blocks and not > > characters. > > Well, to defend Eric, it's okay to be pedantic in this case at a technical > level. Sort of. Well, yes. But in the same posting you are qouting here I also wrote how to fix grub2-mkconfig in a simple way while taking into account those concerns. AFAICS this is really a matter of filing a bug report instead of long discussions on a mailing list. I my opinion proposals of "drop a symlink" kind are really misguided attempts to paper over the issue. Some symlink may always reappear for one reason or another and then we are back to a square one. Michal -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
