It surely would not be conformant to Plan 9 systems, but to the protocol? As far as I can read intro(5), it explicitly excludes slash as a valid character for the Plan 9 OS, but it also explicitly states that "the protocol has no such restriction".
Be patient: I'm asking because this could be a typo in the intro(5) man page, or in my understanding of its phrasing. Still, using this protocol "feature" to enable atomic directory change could be useful in my use cases, but I don't want to build yet another 9p2000 extension. Giacomo 2015-01-30 15:13 GMT+01:00 erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net>: > > Now, since the protocol does not restrict names (even if Plan 9 does it), > > I'm wondering if setting the name to a full path starting from root could > > be used to change atomically the directory of a file (given the write > > permission on both original and target directory). > > > > Obviously I'm not referring to Plan 9 file servers (I guess this would > be a > > non retrocompatbile change), but I'm considering if such interpretation > > would be wrong (according to the official specifications). > > > > A server supporting such behaviour could be considered a 9p2000 > conformant > > server? > > it would not be conformant. the intro explicitly excludes slash as a > valid character. > (unlike a dns zone.) and its more detailed explinations are meant to hold > for the > entire section. > > but you could still do it, as long as the file servers were the same. > > - erik > >
