From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri,  1 Oct 2004 10:36:10 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] simple questions on bind semantics
Message-ID: <20041001173610.GJ21014@submarine>
References: <7359f049040927175156a92c6b@mail.gmail.com>
	<5a2eba616f4a7313682c50a8c03ec5aa@hamnavoe.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5a2eba616f4a7313682c50a8c03ec5aa@hamnavoe.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ebdb3096-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 06:06:00PM +0100, Richard Miller wrote:
> > There's nothing stopping a service from creating bind destinations
> > on demand, and I think this has even been done in a special
> > device
> 
> That's mntgen(4).
> 
> But if you want to create only one specific bind destination instead
> of having them appear on demand, you can use stub(8).

  Thanks. stub(8) looks pretty much like what I really need. However,
  it got me thinking: what if I need more stubs than one -- for every
  one of them there'll be a separate process serving one file, right ?
  Even with COW paging this sort of looks like an overkill, wouldn't 
  it be possible to serve all "stubs" with one process, using the
  third ("spec") option of mount as a distinguishing factor.

Thanks,
Roman.