Reputation
292
Top tag
Next privilege 300 Rep.
Create tags
Badges
1 8
Newest
 Curious
Impact
~1k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 24 votes cast
Apr
1
accepted Is it possible to create a non-empty file without write_close and rename event?
Apr
1
comment Is it possible to create a non-empty file without write_close and rename event?
Yep, I also suspected it's a hardlink, thanks.
Apr
1
asked Is it possible to create a non-empty file without write_close and rename event?
Sep
28
accepted Binding to not existing interface
Sep
28
comment Binding to not existing interface
@Patrick I see now, it is there (I mean, it is assigned to the network interface) :-S May suit as an answer actually :-)
Sep
28
revised Binding to not existing interface
added 1 character in body
Sep
28
asked Binding to not existing interface
Jul
2
awarded  Curious
May
3
awarded  Nice Question
Mar
17
accepted Escaping dash in `dch` call
Mar
17
asked Escaping dash in `dch` call
Jan
28
awarded  Yearling
Nov
7
accepted What is the rationale behind using non-numeric package component for the version?
Nov
7
asked What is the rationale behind using non-numeric package component for the version?
Oct
25
comment Is `rm -rf` not atomic?
@Aitch: the code that works with it handles all the possible cases. So even if directory or its contents completely or partially disappears at any moment - then it just regenerates it back.
Oct
22
comment Is `rm -rf` not atomic?
@Gilles: it depends: "A piece of code is thread-safe if it only manipulates shared data structures in a manner that guarantees safe execution by multiple threads at the same time". So if we assume "thread" as a rm invocation, we may speak about thread-safety. But anyway, it doesn't change anything
Oct
22
comment Is `rm -rf` not atomic?
@Johnny: yep, that's what I actually already implemented :-)
Oct
21
accepted Is `rm -rf` not atomic?
Oct
21
comment Is `rm -rf` not atomic?
it's actually enough for me, thanks :-) Only if you wish to do that for the further readers
Oct
21
comment Is `rm -rf` not atomic?
That's another good reason indeed. (but in my case - that directory only stores the write-once-only files).