There's a nice paper "The use of namespaces in plan 9" explaining most of it.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:00 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> A) Why aren't there the following (POSIX) file operations: `move`,
>> `link` and `symlink` in the original 9p2000 protocol version?
>>
>> Now I know th
> A) Why aren't there the following (POSIX) file operations: `move`,
> `link` and `symlink` in the original 9p2000 protocol version?
>
> Now I know that by using `wstat` I can change the name of a file,
> but I can't move it outside the current directory.
symlinks weren't wanted. they cr
Hy there! (I'm quite new to the whole Plan 9 and 9P, so please
bare with me if I'm asking stupid or well known questions.) :)
Today I've introduced myself to the 9P protocol, and I've found it
very interesting. (I've reached it from the XCPU project.)
(And I must say that, in Linux, it
> it would surely make it easier for unix implementations. i have had
> plenty of issues with that in o9fs.
>
> but as yourself pointed out, what would that walk mean?
as i also pointed out, there's no problem if
the walk is creating a new fid. it would be unopened.
russ
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Russ Cox wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote:
>> How come you can't TWalk along an open Fid?
>
> In the original 9P protocol, that didn't make sense,
> because walk always updated the fid it was starting from.
> If you open a fid and t
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote:
> How come you can't TWalk along an open Fid?
In the original 9P protocol, that didn't make sense,
because walk always updated the fid it was starting from.
If you open a fid and then walk it elsewhere,
is it still open? Is that an implic
Hi,
How come you can't TWalk along an open Fid?
Thanks,
-- vs
