From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: Wladimir Mutel <mwg@fluffy.isd.dp.ua>
Message-ID: <1004699299.772773@firewall.isd.dp.ua>
References: <20011025124551.4A1E1199B5@mail.cse.psu.edu>, <slrn9u1uv0.70b.randolph@panix3.panix.com>, <87u1wdx2ry.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9
Date: Fri,  2 Nov 2001 11:43:02 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 12923bac-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb+usenet@becket.net> wrote:

> What do people think about per-process directory hierarchies?  I've
> asked the question about four times now, and sadly, nobody in this
> happy collaborative environment has anything to say.

	Nice thing. Linux is to borrow it :>

> To repeat: Plan 9 has a nifty idea of making mount tables per-process,
> and as a result gets huge benefits across the board.  But why stop
> there?  Why should not *all* links (instead of just some) be a

	Linux should also borrow 'fileserver' concept.
	Nice to have it instead of VFS-layer. And to make userspace
	fileserver-processes instead of kernel VFS modules.