> > i don't see any reason why 9p couldn't use some of the same > > congestion control ideas. the trick would be to feed back packet loss > > detection and retransmission info to the point where file io gets > > turned into rpcs→the mount driver > > Agreed -- sort of what I meant by "I hope 9p evolves". > Though I'd probably stick this in a layer below 9p.
i suggested putting it above 9p. i don't understand your suggestion. how would a layer below know that there is more data? > It can > backpressure a 9p client if it tries to send too much (either > by blocking or returning with equiv of EWOULDBLOCK). isn't that what you just complained about—fcp having to do the kernel's work? i think EWOULDBLOCK would be a big mistake. io in plan 9 is synchronous. and this is very much on purpose. - erik
