2009/4/26 Roman V. Shaposhnik :
> On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 18:53 +0100, roger peppe wrote:
>> i wonder how many things would break if plan 9 moved to
>> a strictly name-based mapping for its mount table...
>
> What exactly do you mean by *strictly* ?
i mean using pathnames rather
than using qids. "st
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 18:53 +0100, roger peppe wrote:
> i wonder how many things would break if plan 9 moved to
> a strictly name-based mapping for its mount table...
What exactly do you mean by *strictly* ?
Thanks,
Roman.
> ...integrate the
> caching into a cache file system
this was discussed at one of the iwp9s I believe.
Ok, a thought experiment.
Extend fossil so that you can attach to objects of the form
fs.changes (e.g. main.changes or other.changes). Open a known file
here (e.g. /update) and you will receiv
Another alternative (maybe this has already been mentioned -- I
haven't been closely following the thread) -- is to integrate the
caching into a cache file system. That way you get the advantage for
static files (and static file systems) where you have the least
opportunity to shoot yourself in th
On Apr 23, 2009, at 12:26 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
with 9p2000, if you want to do a Tread, it's pretty clear that
one needs to read(2); traditiona syscalls map directly to 9p.
It seems to me that the syscall interface is by design different than
the 9p2000 api:
- most syscalls map to a se
2009/4/23 Fco. J. Ballesteros :
> But if you do that (send sequences from userl-level)
> you must interpret your namespace yourself. When I tried to
> detect how to bundle calls for plan b, a problem I had was
> namec. For me it's still not clear how to detect cleanly
> `what to batch', even if you
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > as a starting point, i'd envisaged simply changing the existing
> > system calls to do sequences.
> >
> [...]
> >
> > Sequence: adt {
> > queue: fn(seq: self ref Sequence, m: Tmsg, tag: any);
> > wait: fn(seq: self ref Sequenc
gram doing I/O to help there, because of the mount
table.
> From: rogpe...@gmail.com
> To: 9fans@9fans.net
> Reply-To: 9fans@9fans.net
> Date: Thu Apr 23 19:26:06 CET 2009
> Subject: Re: [9fans] 9p2010
>
> 2009/4/23 erik quanstrom :
> > it occurred to me ye
> as a starting point, i'd envisaged simply changing the existing
> system calls to do sequences.
>
[...]
>
> Sequence: adt {
> queue: fn(seq: self ref Sequence, m: Tmsg, tag: any);
> wait: fn(seq: self ref Sequence): (any, Tmsg, Rmsg);
> cont: fn(seq: self ref Sequence);
>
2009/4/23 erik quanstrom :
> it occurred to me yesterday morning that the problem with
> a bundle of 9p requests is that 9p then no longer maps directly
> to system calls.
>
> with 9p2000, if you want to do a Tread, it's pretty clear that
> one needs to read(2); traditiona syscalls map directly to
it occurred to me yesterday morning that the problem with
a bundle of 9p requests is that 9p then no longer maps directly
to system calls.
with 9p2000, if you want to do a Tread, it's pretty clear that
one needs to read(2); traditiona syscalls map directly to 9p.
not so when bundles/sequences are
11 matches
Mail list logo
