From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 16:52:33 -0800 From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" In-reply-to: <69a918481d4c7236d6e30d2bf8093221@quanstro.net> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-id: <1231116753.11463.295.camel@goose.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <69a918481d4c7236d6e30d2bf8093221@quanstro.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] directly opening Plan9 devices Topicbox-Message-UUID: 791678f2-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 00:27 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote: > > > Usign #X means doing a mount (you are attaching to the root > > > of the driver's tree). > > > > You're right, of course. But it feels like a very special mount > > if one can refer to files served by the drivers directly through: > > '#X/bla-bla'. > > s/driver/file server/ > there doesn't need to be any hardware involved. Well, that's part of the problem. I can't refer to things served by the actual 9P servers via something like /srv/sources/plan9. /srv/sources is a channel and as such it needs to be explicitly mounted before I can access what is being served by it. If all I could do with #X is to bind/mount it -- it would make a much more coherent model. From my point of view, of course. > could you explain why you think this is special? I have nothing (major) against bind/mount interpreting names that start with # in a special way. I feel quite confused when namec() does that interpretation for a variety of system calls. Things like term% cd '#|' term% pwd #| just don't seem right. But let me ask you this in return: do you feel that constraining #X to bind/mount only would, actually, be worse compared to the behavior we have today? Thanks, Roman.