From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:26:23 -0800
From: Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <7c5efb383a86c1daae7144dc8e310d5b@9netics.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <1FCEFB86-E3B5-4088-8615-B7EA94185AD8@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <7c5efb383a86c1daae7144dc8e310d5b@9netics.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Do we have a catalog of 9P servers?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3d124106-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
>> I just want to have
>> separate protocol ops for messages versus a single extension op.  I
>> suppose the difference is largely an implementation decision assuming
>> your protocol operation space is large enough
>
> the thinking is that it's the least polluting -- in regard to 9P
> messages -- while still allowing for many categories of ops.

That's all goodness, but isn't it really an ioctl() that we all love
to hate?

Thanks,
Roman.