2009/4/26 Roman V. Shaposhnik r...@sun.com:
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
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.
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
2009/4/23 erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net:
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
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);
flush:
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 quans...@quanstro.net:
it occurred to me yesterday morning
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
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
2009/4/23 Fco. J. Ballesteros n...@lsub.org:
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',
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
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
...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 receive
11 matches
Mail list logo
