From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <13426df10705030840k635ec03fkc5c849dafa46cde8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu,  3 May 2007 08:40:31 -0700
From: "ron minnich" <rminnich@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] tree problem
In-Reply-To: <200705031528.l43FSQ006268@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20070503150147.C2AAF1E8C1F@holo.morphisms.net>
	<200705031528.l43FSQ006268@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 572e0cac-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

I'm sort of missing the point here. What was the case where destroyfid
was not sufficient? I don't understand the user reusing a fid if the
user had not stopped using it, i.e. if the user had two references to
the fid, and clunked it once, isn't reusing that fid an error of some
sort?

IIRC destroyfid is just what is called when the ref count is zero,
which is pretty close to what you want much of the time.

(that said, I keep thinking I want clunk in there anyway :)

thanks

ron