From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:05:10 -0800 From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" In-reply-to: <565ecea34171eb37da1e18d5a05ee869@quanstro.net> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-id: <1231466710.6916.95.camel@goose.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 References: <565ecea34171eb37da1e18d5a05ee869@quanstro.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Why do we need syspipe() ? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7dce52de-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 18:48 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote: > >> > Although in the alternative universe I can see how implementing #X= =20 > >> > as *channels* capable of 9P messages, could enable things like mou= nting > >> > them on external hosts and letting these hosts manipulate physical > >> > devices attached to yours (I agree that remote mounting of the ker= nel > >> > services, which do not correspond to physical devices, is less use= ful). > >> > Just like exporting my *local* /srv can be a useful things at time= s. > >>=20 > >> you mean like this? > >> import -E ssl minooka.coraid.com '#=C3=A6' /n/minooka=C3=A6 > >=20 > > Well, I tend not to like the proliferation of exportfs', but may > > be in this case it is actually better that what I had in mind. >=20 > why? Multiplexing. If devices exposed channel interface, and got exported there would be no kernel protecting from clients sending random sequences of 9P messages (on a single host you can't mount a channel and then continue reading/writing 9P messages over it). So the way devices are right now, actually seems to be better compared to what I have in mind. Sorry for the noise. Thanks, Roman.