On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:33:17PM -0500, Colin DeVilbiss wrote:
>The 9p(3) plan9ports manpage suggests that
>only multi-threaded servers should "block" requests by not
>respond()ing to them before returning from the associated service
>routine, and that only multi-threaded servers would need to implement
>flush().

I'm not aware that it implies that, but I see no reason that you 
shouldn't do this in a single threaded server.

>My plan:
> ...
>Does that sound viable, or is there some machinery inside Srv that I
>would run afoul of by doing that?

Yes, it sounds reasonable, it's very similar to what I do in wmii.

>As a side note, I see that none of the 9p filesystems that are
>currently packaged in plan9port are both single-threaded and
>Srv-based.  Is there some reason I don't want to do that here?

wmii (not part of plan9port) is single-threaded and Srv-based (though 
not lib9p based. The interface that it uses copies lib9p).

-- 
Kris Maglione

Despite the sign that says "wet paint",
please don't.