From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <140e7ec30806191408t66d61414hffe8870b34e24bcf@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:08:29 +0800 From: sqweek To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <20080619150936.218261E8C45@holo.morphisms.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <59247.81.47.192.163.1213873686.squirrel@webmail.kix.es> <20080619150936.218261E8C45@holo.morphisms.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] P9p's mount(1) on linux Topicbox-Message-UUID: c374fb22-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Russ Cox wrote: > I wrote a new user-level file server a month ago, > something I hadn't done in years, and I did it on Linux, > using lib9p backed by 9pfuse. It was an entirely pleasant > experience. Speaking of 9pfuse - I've just pulled and the version distributed with p9p is still not going to work on linux/x86_64. I posted a patch for this[1], though 9fans.net doesn't appear to archive attachments - see http://sqweek.dnsdojo.org/tmp/9pfuse.LARGEFILE.diff Also, I've sent you a couple of emails off-list recently about a bug in 9p(1). I can't think of anything I might have done to offend you, so I'm assuming they've been marked as spam or otherwise waylaid - should I just post the patch to 9fans? If you did get the patch and have just been thinking about it, then my apologies for being impatient. That scenario just seems increasingly unlikely :) [1] http://9fans.net/archive/2008/03/530 -sqweek