Re: [9fans] Is this weird?

Re: [9fans] Is this weird?

[forsyth]

>>Maybe you guys misunderstood the question. Basicall I'm getting a

sorry.  we ought to have answered your question before starting
a subdiscussion.  when you list a union mount, you'll see the contents
of each directory in turn.  in particular, if you unite a directory with itself,
however many times, you'll see the files in each instance (ie, names repeated).
try something like

	mkdir m
	>m/x
	bind -b m m
	ls m
	bind -b m m
	ls m
	...

in your case, as rob suggested, you've most likely done something that
caused /net to be bound to itself.  i'd guess that, not #I alone
being bound twice, because ether0 (#l) is there as well.

often when the same names appear, they really do come from different
directories in the union.  ls -q prints Qid data that helps to distinguish
them, hence rob's suggestion of ls -lq.  in your case, duplicate names
should have the same qids (because they are the same file).
another helpful option is -n, which tells ls not to sort the result, so names
appear in the order they are seen in the union, allowing you to tell which
duplicate is uppermost (and thus selected by the system in a search).

Re: [9fans] Is this weird?

[presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 59 bytes --]

Just run 'ns' and see how your namespace is put together.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 4713 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 197 bytes --]

Do an ls -lq.  If the files are identical, not just have the same name,
it means you've mounted the services multiple times.  If the names
are the same but not the qids, I'm confused.

-rob


[-- Attachment #2.1.2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2991 bytes --]

From: "James G. Stallings II" <alteridentity@yahoo.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Is this weird?
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:55:50 -0500
Message-ID: <3947C726.CF9FB553@yahoo.com>

forsyth@vitanuova.com wrote:

> >>BTW, what was the rationale for that behaviour?
>
> presumably, because it's telling the truth: in the union, all those
> instances are there if you look at it.

Maybe you guys misunderstood the question. Basicall I'm getting a
directory listing (lc) which seems to have multiple entries for the same
file. Like this:

plan9% lc /net
arp                ether0                ipifc             ipselftab
ssl
arp                gre                      ipifc
log             tcp
bootp            gre                      ipmux         log
tcp
bootp            icmp                   ipmux         ndb            udp

cs                  icmp                   iproute        ndb
udp
dns                il                          iproute        rudp
ether0          il                          ipselftab      rudp

plan9%

ls -l yields similar behaviour excepting the anticipated formatting
changes and level of detail.

I have encountered no other portions of the namespace with these
characteristics. If this were a UNIX filesystem of some sort, I'd be
highly suspicious of this listing - but Plan 9 is not a Unix.

Does your /net resemble this, or have I hosed something trying to
configure my networking?

Thanks and Best Regards,
James



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Re: [9fans] Is this weird?

[rob pike]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 197 bytes --]

Do an ls -lq.  If the files are identical, not just have the same name,
it means you've mounted the services multiple times.  If the names
are the same but not the qids, I'm confused.

-rob


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2991 bytes --]

From: "James G. Stallings II" <alteridentity@yahoo.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Is this weird?
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:55:50 -0500
Message-ID: <3947C726.CF9FB553@yahoo.com>

forsyth@vitanuova.com wrote:

> >>BTW, what was the rationale for that behaviour?
>
> presumably, because it's telling the truth: in the union, all those
> instances are there if you look at it.

Maybe you guys misunderstood the question. Basicall I'm getting a
directory listing (lc) which seems to have multiple entries for the same
file. Like this:

plan9% lc /net
arp                ether0                ipifc             ipselftab
ssl
arp                gre                      ipifc
log             tcp
bootp            gre                      ipmux         log
tcp
bootp            icmp                   ipmux         ndb            udp

cs                  icmp                   iproute        ndb
udp
dns                il                          iproute        rudp
ether0          il                          ipselftab      rudp

plan9%

ls -l yields similar behaviour excepting the anticipated formatting
changes and level of detail.

I have encountered no other portions of the namespace with these
characteristics. If this were a UNIX filesystem of some sort, I'd be
highly suspicious of this listing - but Plan 9 is not a Unix.

Does your /net resemble this, or have I hosed something trying to
configure my networking?

Thanks and Best Regards,
James



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Re: [9fans] Is this weird?

[Russ Cox]

The problem is that '#l0' and '#I' have
been bound onto the directory twice.

You can type "ns" to confirm that,
and poking around at how the namespace
is constructed might help track it down.

Russ

Re: [9fans] Is this weird?

[forsyth]

>>BTW, what was the rationale for that behaviour?

presumably, because it's telling the truth: in the union, all those
instances are there if you look at it.

Re: [9fans] Is this weird?

[James G. Stallings II]

forsyth@vitanuova.com wrote:

> >>BTW, what was the rationale for that behaviour?
>
> presumably, because it's telling the truth: in the union, all those
> instances are there if you look at it.

Maybe you guys misunderstood the question. Basicall I'm getting a
directory listing (lc) which seems to have multiple entries for the same
file. Like this:

plan9% lc /net
arp                ether0                ipifc             ipselftab
ssl
arp                gre                      ipifc
log             tcp
bootp            gre                      ipmux         log
tcp
bootp            icmp                   ipmux         ndb            udp

cs                  icmp                   iproute        ndb
udp
dns                il                          iproute        rudp
ether0          il                          ipselftab      rudp

plan9%

ls -l yields similar behaviour excepting the anticipated formatting
changes and level of detail.

I have encountered no other portions of the namespace with these
characteristics. If this were a UNIX filesystem of some sort, I'd be
highly suspicious of this listing - but Plan 9 is not a Unix.

Does your /net resemble this, or have I hosed something trying to
configure my networking?

Thanks and Best Regards,
James



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Re: [9fans] Is this weird?

[Andrey Mirtchovski]

Please take a look at:

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/names.html

I think you will find the answer there (or rather something that explains
it to an extent)..


Andrey

Re: [9fans] Is this weird?

[Alexander Viro]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 forsyth@vitanuova.com wrote:

> >>BTW, what was the rationale for that behaviour?
>
> presumably, because it's telling the truth: in the union, all those
> instances are there if you look at it.

Erm... It's not exactly a union.

Re: [9fans] Is this weird?

[C H Forsyth]

oh i see.  the implications of the name.
it seems consistent with definition 1 in the OED, but
set union analogies might mislead,
depending on what you think it's uniting.

perhaps it's an autonomous collective.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Viro" <viro@math.psu.edu>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: [9fans] Is this weird?


>
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 forsyth@vitanuova.com wrote:
>
> > >>BTW, what was the rationale for that behaviour?
> >
> > presumably, because it's telling the truth: in the union, all those
> > instances are there if you look at it.
>
> Erm... It's not exactly a union.
>

[9fans] Is this weird?

[James G. Stallings II]

I have some duplicate directory entries under /net. Things like arp,
bootp, ether0, icmp, il - in fact most of them have two identical
entries in the /net directory.

Is that normal? I can determine no difference between the instances of
the duplicate entries.

Thanks,
James




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Re: [9fans] Is this weird?

[Alexander Viro]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, James G. Stallings II wrote:

>
> I have some duplicate directory entries under /net. Things like arp,
> bootp, ether0, icmp, il - in fact most of them have two identical
> entries in the /net directory.
>
> Is that normal? I can determine no difference between the instances of
> the duplicate entries.

mountpoint and root of mounted tree, you mean? That had been there since
long.

BTW, what was the rationale for that behaviour?

Re: [9fans] Is this weird?

[James G. Stallings II]

Uh, sorry but yo kind of lost me there Alex.

Please reload and take another shot at that.

Thanks!
James

Alexander Viro wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, James G. Stallings II wrote:
>
> >
> > I have some duplicate directory entries under /net. Things like arp,
> > bootp, ether0, icmp, il - in fact most of them have two identical
> > entries in the /net directory.
> >
> > Is that normal? I can determine no difference between the instances of
> > the duplicate entries.
>
> mountpoint and root of mounted tree, you mean? That had been there since
> long.
>
> BTW, what was the rationale for that behaviour?


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com