From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <13426df10802181012p7a466841iee7c2e2609c885@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:12:59 -0800
From: "ron minnich" <rminnich@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Page-aligned executables (Was re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling
	conventions)
In-Reply-To: <7871fcf50802181006t5eb75d7cj9ac5197aeebb9dc3@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <7871fcf50802180853v7473d507w991517014e3cb4bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<13426df10802180910g45d2134cs7919137aa6f3661d@mail.gmail.com>
	<7871fcf50802181006t5eb75d7cj9ac5197aeebb9dc3@mail.gmail.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 59734bac-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Feb 18, 2008 10:06 AM, Joel C. Salomon <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given the 'joys' of mmap over remote file
> systems, we *really* don't want it in Plan 9 as-is!


What are those "joys" of which you speak?

Just about every Unix system in the world today (including linux) that
does an exec over nfs does the equivalent of mmap (in the kernel, so
you never see it) or explicitly (in the case of shared libraries).
SunOS/Solaris has done it that way for 20 years now. It kinda works
...

ron