From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: okamoto@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp
Message-Id: <200007180455.AAA17001@cse.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Why rio instead of 8 1/2
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:56:02 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="upas-lwtvadrrpgkwqocyjzxjhnsowv"
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e04279b0-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--upas-lwtvadrrpgkwqocyjzxjhnsowv
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks Rob!

Now, I got that it shows the state of channel communication.


I got another difficulty to understand how the rio works.
Of course it comes from my personal inablility to read the sources,
however, I suppose it's not so easy to some of Plan 9 users like me, either.

1) all the seven procs have the same memory size, and grows
     coincidently alltogether.  Why?  Only the process of threadmain()
     can grow, can't it?

2) proc wctlproc does only check "New" command, and writectl()
     is called from xfidwrite() which is checked by normal filsyproc().
     So, why /srv/riowctl.$user.$pid is posted?  The "New" command
     can also be checked from the normal filsysproc(), can't it?

3) filsysproc() calls file operation functions in fsys.c, and many of
     those functions call  coresponding xfidxxx functions through
     channel x->c.  Why these two processes are separated?  Or
     what is the merrit to use channel for this purpose, but not just
     function call by pointer alone?

Kenji


--upas-lwtvadrrpgkwqocyjzxjhnsowv
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from elmo.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp (elmo.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp [157.16.103.2])
	by granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19626
	for <okamoto@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp>; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:37:06 +0900
Received: from cse.psu.edu (majordom@claven.cse.psu.edu [130.203.3.50])
	by elmo.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-00051217) with ESMTP id IAA28075;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:37:21 +0900 (JST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
	by cse.psu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA14846;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:35:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by claven.cse.psu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:35:03 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by cse.psu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA14786
	for 9fans-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:34:58 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: claven.cse.psu.edu: majordom set sender to owner-9fans using -f
Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com (plan9.bell-labs.com [204.178.31.2])
	by cse.psu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA14780
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:34:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200007132334.TAA14780@cse.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Why rio instead of 8 1/2
From: "rob pike" <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:34:52 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-9fans@cse.psu.edu
Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Precedence: bulk

	Then, No. (2) and (5) procs are marked as rendez.  I looked into
	sources, however, I failed to understand where the No.2 and 5
	processes are called rendezvous.  I know I'm missing something...

They aren't called rendezvous, they're in the rendezvous state.
That field of the ps output is the state of the process, typically a system
call name (such as Wait, Read, etc.) or a process state (Fault, Rendez,
etc.)

-rob

--upas-lwtvadrrpgkwqocyjzxjhnsowv--