* Russ Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you can run
>
> verbose9pserve=2 vacfs ...
>
> and you will get a lot of debugging messages on standard error.
thx, I'll have a try.
> among other things, you'll get a trace of all the 9p traffic,
> and you can check whether this is true. i doubt very much
> that vacfs is dropping messages, since it is a single-threaded
> server with a simple
>
> for(;;){
> read request
> response = handle(request);
> write response
> }
>
> loop.
My feeling is not that random messages get dropped, but writes
or opening for write. So this problem would sit somewhere
within/below handle().
> >> i had considered not requiring the unix! once,
> >> but i decided against it.
> >
> > That would be fine, why did you decied against ?
>
> network addresses and files are different kinds of names.
> mixing them would introduce ambiguities, like what
> if i have a file name 'tcp!bell-labs.com!http'.
> also there was no obvious error response if you
> dial "a!b!c!d!e". is it a malformed address?
> not if a file name a!b!c!d!e exists. but in general, yes.
hmm, I've introduced an 9P URL scheme in my libmixp.
It's not fully specified and can't handle all socket types yet,
but at least for TCP streams it's - IMHO - quite convenient.
eg: 9p://host:port/
Maybe I'll someday use the (currently ignore) path component
for chroot.
cu
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
