From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:57:54 +0100
From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@cisco.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] About 9P ...
Message-ID: <20070622165754.D21140@mrwint.cisco.com>
References: <46783873.4060804@free.fr> <20070622013243.B21140@mrwint.cisco.com>
	<467B72FC.2020808@free.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
In-Reply-To: <467B72FC.2020808@free.fr>;
	from xigh@free.fr on Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 08:58:04AM +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 84e401a6-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 08:58:04AM +0200, Philippe Anel wrote:
> What do you mean ?

Well,  I've not read the protocol details for a while.
But from memory I thought it allowed this type of operation:

    send: open,fid,file
    send: read,fid,args
    send: read,fid,args

    (wait one rtt)

    recv: open success/fail
    recv: read result / read error due to unknown fid
    recv: read result / read error due to unknown fid

DF

>=20
> Derek Fawcus a =E9crit :
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:11:31PM +0200, Philippe Anel wrote:
> >  =20
> >> Can someone explain me the reason why the Fids are not returned
> >> by the server (along with the Qids by example) ?
> >>    =20
> >
> > I always assumed it was to enable pipelined operations.
> >
> > DF
> >
> >
> >  =20