[email protected] once said:
> Are these subtle differences (the two in the man page and the third in
> code) intentional? It's my first time implementing a 9P file system
> so apologies if I'm missing something basic.
It's actually just a case of forgetting to update the man page.
In early February 2003, Russ was cleaning up lib9p and changed
the code to check that fid->qid and qid were exactly the same.
He updated the man page accordingly. However, Dan Cross noticed
that it broke some existing code. Russ then relaxed the client
requirements and had lib9p just assign qid to fid->qid. The man
page wasn't updated to reflect the change.
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [9fans] Okay, who's been playing with the cheese wiz?
From: "Russ Cox" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 16:51:01 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
[...]
I changed lib9p to do a few more checks that the
client code is behaving, and your execnet crash
shows that lib9p thinks execnet is not behaving.
It turns out that actually lib9p is not behaving -- I was
trying to clean up this particular detail (whether a
walk function should set both fid->qid and *qid),
because it always confuses me, and I got confused.
I just put out a new srv.c that makes reasonable
demands of the clients.
[...]
Cheers,
Anthony
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tb39d71a5497bba2d-M26c5e627eb106c505ce67b9b
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
