From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <020901c4b46f$b837ca10$8fd27d50@SOMA>
From: "boyd, rounin" <boyd@insultant.net>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <f5bbaa3d61cddff0ebce8441ed44744f@collyer.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] truncation via wstat on ken's fs
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:35:37 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ef819ef6-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> Changing the length is easy, but giving back the no-longer-needed
> blocks is messy, involving a recursive walk of the indirect blocks.

doesn't this fall out of the remove case?  i remember chris maltby
hacking 32V so that it would truncate to a point [unlink].

or, does remove do some other trickery?