I just learned to love absolute paths. IIRC, there was no deadlock caused that you should be aware of. I'ts been a long time and quite a few protocols since then, I can look for the source; there must be also some docs in the web. Also, I'm more in favor of prefix mount tables, that they are very different from what 9 does and they would lead to a very different system.
Good luck and have fun. > On 2 May 2018, at 19:14, Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it> wrote: > > 2013-06-17 21:06 GMT+02:00 Nemo <nemo.m...@gmail.com>: > You should ask if anyone else did that before doing it, instead of saying > they are un-spined life forms. > > Here I am, finally! :-) > > I'm designing yet another file protocol for my toy/research os (whose kernel > is derived from Charles Forsyth's Plan9-9k), and I'd like to give a look at > your prior art. > > Some of my design decisions lead to a management of mount tables that is > pretty similar to what you describe in your paper about the integration of > 9P2000.ix. > > Given you already walked this path, I'd like to know what you have learnt and > if you faced issues I should be aware. > For example, the slight difference in bind semantics seems to reduce the risk > of accidental loops in the namespace, but I would expect it would break > related userspace assumptions. > Also, resolving the dot of each process in the Pgrp each time a mount is > done, seems pretty complex and prone to deadlocks. > > > Don't you have a tricorder? > > No... but usually I can get away with my sonic screwdriver... :-) > > > Giacomo >
